-^^«^  OF  pmc^ 


■^fOtOGiCAL  SE»*f^^  ' 


THE    CHURCH 


FIRST    THREE    CENTURIES: 


OR, 


NOTICES   OF   THE   LIVES  AND   OPINIONS   OF 
THE  EARLY  FATHERS, 

WITH    SPECIAL   REFERENCE  TO 

THE  DOCTEINE  OF  THE  TRINITY; 

ILLUSTRATING   ITS 

LATE  ORIGIN  AND  GRADUAL  FORMATION. 


BT 

ALVAN    LAMSON,    D.  D. 


REVISED  AND  ENLARGED  EDITION. 


BOSTON: 
HOUGHTON,  OSGOOD  AND  COMPANT. 

1880. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1865,  by 

A.  W.  Lamson, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts 


RIVERSIDE,     CAMBRIDGE: 

STEREOTYPED     AND     PRINTED     BT 

H.    O.    HOUGHTON    AND    COMPANY. 


PREFACE. 


The  title  prefixed  to  the  present  work  sufficiently 
indicates  its  purpose.  Of  the  articles  contained  in  it, 
some  have  a  more  direct  reference  to  the  opinions  of 
Christian  antiquity,  respecting  the  Son  and  the  Spirit, 
than  others.  In  some,  this  topic  is  most  largely 
dwelt  upon;  in  one  or  two,  it  is  but  slightly  no- 
ticed ;  in  all,  it  receives  more  or  less  attention.  As 
to  the  other  matter  contained  in  the  volume,  histor- 
ical and  biographical,  or  such  as  relates  to  the 
opinions,  usages,  and  social  habits,  which  marked  the 
early  ages,  and  the  merits  and  defects  of  the  Fathers 
as  critics  and  expositors,  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  I 
have  proceeded  on  the  supposition,  that  its  intro- 
duction would  enhance  the  value  and  interest  of  the 
work. 

I  have  not  written  as  the  organ  of  any  party.  I 
have  wished  simply  to  make  the  volume  a  repository 
of  facts,  particularly  connected  with  the  opinions  of 
Christians  of  the  first  three  centuries,  on  the  nature 
and  rank  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit ;  and  I  have 
spared  no  pains  in  the  endeavor  to  give  the  exact 
expressions  of  the  great  church  teachers  of  the  period 
included  in  my  survey,  with  copious  and  minute 
references.     I  ofier  the  book  as  a  help  to  inquirers 


IV  PREFACE. 

who  may  wish  to  know  what  the  early  Fathers  really 
thought  and  said.  A  portion  of  the  materials  was 
given  to  the  public,  many  years  ago,  in  the  pages  of 
a  review.  These  materials  I  have  elaborated  with 
some  care,  dividing  the  whole  into  chapters,  and 
omitting,  changing,  and  adding,  to  render  the  work 
better  suited  to  the  end  I  have  had  in  view.  I  have 
endeavored  to  exclude  all  personalities,  and  every- 
thing which  might  give  just  cause  of  offence  to  any 
individual,  or  any  class  of  Christians. 

With  these  few  prefatory   remarks,  I   leave    the 
book  to  the  charitable  judgment  of  the  public. 


NOTE  TO   THE   SECOND  EDITION. 


The  first  edition  of  this  work  was  published  in  1860,  and 
has  been  for  some  time  out  of  print.  The  present  edition 
contains  large  additions,  the  Preliminary  Chapter  on  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  being  entirely  new,  as  are  also  the  Note 
on  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  and  the  principal  part  of  the 
articles  on  the  "  Fathers  subsequent  to  Justin  Martyr  and 
before  the  time  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,"  and  on  the 
"  Writers  subsequent  to  the  time  of  Origen  and  before  the 
rise  of  the  Arian  Controversy."  These  additions  give  a  com- 
pleteness to  the  work,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  history  of  early 
opinions  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  which  greatly  enhances 
its  value.  Considerable  additions  and  alterations  have  been 
made  in  other  parts  of  the  volume,  the  whole  having  been 
carefully  revised  by  the  lamented  author,  before  his  decease, 
with  a  view  to  the  printing  of  a  new  edition.  The  materials 
left  by  him  for  this  purpose  were,  in  accordance  with  his 
expressed  wish,  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  present  editor  for 
revision  and  publication.  He  has  verified  nearly  all  the  quota- 
tions and  references  in  the  volume,  and  has  added  a  few  notes, 
which  are  followed  by  the  abbreviation  "  Ed.,"  and  enclosed 
in  brackets.  In  two  instances,  also,  (pp.  10,  67,  68,)  it  ap- 
peared necessary  to  insert  in  brackets  short  additions  to  the 
text,  founded  on  manuscript  memoranda  of  the  author,  which, 
though  indicating  his  purpose  to  make  such  additions,  were 
not  left  in  a  condition  suitable  for  pubhcation. 

EZRA  ABBOT. 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  May  27th,  1865. 


GGIGAL 


CONTENTS. 


PRELIMINARY  CHAPTER. 

WRITINGS    ASCRIBED    TO   THE  APOSTOLICAL  FATHERS,   SO 

CALLED. 

PAGE 

Reasons  for  noticing  them.  Clement  of  Rome.  Claim  of  One  of  the 
Epistles  attributed  to  him  to  be  received  as  Genuine.  Its  Date  and 
Character.  Its  Theology.  Christ  a  Distinct  Being  from  the  Father, 
and  Subordinate.  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  Its  Authorship  and  Date. 
Asserts  the  Preexistence  of  the  Son,  but  excludes  his  Supreme  Di- 
vinity. The  Ignatian  Letters.  Recently  discovered  Syriac  Ver- 
sion. Polycarp.  Epistle  ascribed  to  him.  Its  Theology.  Not 
Trinitarian.  Barnabas.  The  Epistle  which  goes  under  his  Name 
of  Uncertain  Authorship.  Teaches  Christ's  Preexistence,  but  not 
his  Equality  with  the  Father.  General  Summary.  Concluding 
Remarks. 3-2< 

JUSTIN  MARTYR,  AND  HIS  OPINIONS. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Claims  of  Justin  to  our  Notice.  Birth,  and  Early  Studies.  Dissatis- 
faction with  his  Teachers.  His  Despondency.  His  Reception  of 
Platonism.  His  Conversion.  His  Dialogue  with  Trypho.  Writes 
his  First  Apology.     His  Second.     His  Last  Days,  and  Martyrdom.  21-30 

CHAPTER  II. 

Justin's  "Writings.  Extravagant  Praise  bestowed  on  him.  Reverence 
for  the  Fathers  declines.  Examination  of  Justin's  Larger  Apology. 
His  Mode  of  Argument.  Topics  and  Tone  of  his  Address.  Proph- 
ecy and  Miracles.  Topics  of  his  Second  Apology.  Dialogue  with 
Trypho 31-40 

CHAPTER  III. 

General  Defects  of  Justin's  Intellectual  and  Literary  Character.  His 
Love  of  the  Marvellous.  His  Account  of  the  Origin  of  Demons. 
Feats  performed  by  them.  His  Chronological  Errors.  His  Care- 
lessness in  Quotation.  An  AUegorist.  Specimens  of  his  Fanciful 
Interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament.  Types  of  the  Cross.  His 
Learning.     Eminently  Uncritical 41-49 


Vm  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  IV.  PAGB 

Theology  of  Justin.  Origin  of  the  Trinity.  Justin's  Doctrine  of  the 
Logos.  His  Language  cited.  The  Logos  a  Hypostatized  Attribute 
of  the  Father.  Converted  into  a  Real  Being  in  Time,  and  not  from 
Eternity.  The  Son  numerically  Different  from  the  Father.  Volun- 
tarily begotten 50-57 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Views  of  Justin  and  the  Fathers  not  derived  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Language  of  the  Old  Testament  examined.  Of  the  New. 
Justin  ingrafted  on  Christianity  the  Sentiments  of  the  later  Platon- 
ists.  Statements  of  Learned  Trinitarians.  Philo's  Doctrine  of  the 
Logos.  Attempts  to  soften  the  Charge  of  Platonism  against  the 
Fathers 58-G9 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Inferiority  of  the  Son  uniformly  asserted  by  the  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers.  Concessions  of  Trinitarians.  The  Father  and  Son  not 
numerically  One,  nor  Equal.  Proofs  from  Justin.  The  Son  not  an 
Object  of  Direct  Address  in  Prayer.  Sum  of  the  Argument.  Disin- 
genuous Use  made  of  two  Passages  from  Justin.  The  Spirit  an  In- 
fluence.    Justin's  Account  of  the  Humanitarians  of  his  Day.         .  70-85 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Justin's  Account  of  the  Christian  Rites  as  administered  in  his  Day. 
Baptism.  The  Lord's  Supper.  Sunday  Worship.  Calumnies  of 
the  Jews.     The  Memory  of  Justin.      ......    86-91 


NOTE. 

EPISTLE  TO  DIOGNETUS. 

Question  of  its  Genuineness  and  Date.  Its  Theology.  Supremacy  of 
the  Father.  Mission  of  the  Son.  Implanted  or  Insown  Logos. 
Authorship  and  Doctrine  of  the  Concluding  Portion  of  the  Epistle.  92-94 


FATHERS    SUBSEQUENT    TO    JUSTIN    MARTYR,  AND 

BEFORE  THE  TIME  OF  CLEMENT  OF 

ALEXANDRIA. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Tatian  the  Syrian.     His  History.     The  Son  a  Hypostatized  Attribute. 
Had  a  Beginning.     Numerically  distinguished  from  the  Father,  and 


CONTENTS.  ix 

PAGB 

Subordinate.  TheopJiilus  of  Anlioch.  The  Son  originally  the 
Logos,  or  Reason  of  God.  Begotten  in  Time.  The  Instrument  of 
the  Father  in  the  Creation.  The  Father  alone  an  Object  of  Su- 
preme Worship.  The  Term  Trinity  first  used.  The  Spirit  con- 
founded with  the  Logos.  Athenagoras.  Preserves  the  Supremacy 
of  the  Father.  How  he  speaks  of  the  Logos.  The  Spirit  an 
Influence.     .  .         .     95-101 

CHAPTER  II. 

IrencBus.  His  History  and  Writings.  The  Son  a  Separate  Being 
from  the  Father,  and  Subordinate.  Quotations.  Christ  suffered 
in  his  Whole  Nature.  The  Logos  supplied  the  Place  of  the  Rational 
Soul  in  Jesus  Christ.  Terlullian.  Character  and  Writings.  Makes 
the  Father  and  Son  two  Beings.  The  Son  Inferior.  Not  Eternal. 
TertuUian's  Creeds.  Omission  of  the  Spirit.  The  Father  more 
Ancient,  Nobler,  and  more  Powerful  than  the  Son.  The  Unlearned 
Christians.  Their  Horror  of  the  CEconomy,  or  Trinity.  How  Ter- 
tullian  saves  the  Unity.     The  Catacombs.  ....  102-114 


CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  AND  HIS  TIMES. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Martyrdoms  after  that  of  Justin.     Time  of  Clement.     Alexandria.     ' 
Biography  of  Clement.     Pantasnus.     Clement's    Conversion.     Be- 
comes Head  of  the  Catechetical  School  of  Alexandria.     W^as  there 
in   211.     Disappears  from    History.      Direction  of  Studies  in   the 
Alexandrian  School.     Clement's  Writings.        ....  115-121 

CHAPTER  II. 

Clement's  Theology.  He  does  not  ascribe  to  the  Son  a  Distinct  Per- 
sonal Subsistence  from  Eternity.  Clement  makes  him  originally  an 
Attribute.  Asserts  his  Inferiority  in  Strong  Terms.  Antiquity  of 
Christianity.  Inspiration  of  Plato  and  the  Philosophers.  Influence 
of  the  Art  of  Sculpture  among  the  Greeks.  Man  not  born  De- 
praved   122-12S 

CHAPTER  III. 

'  Clement's  Paedagogue.  His  Precepts  of  Living.  Social  Life  among 
the  Egyptians  in  his  Day.  Food.  Use  of  Wine.  Convivial  En- 
tertainments. Music.  Garlands.  The  Ladies  of  Alexandria.  The 
"  Fine  Gentlemen."     Clement  as  a  Reformer.  ....  130-14C 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Clement's  Stromata  :  its  Character.  Mysteries  and  Allegories.  Clem- 
ent's Idea  of  the  True  Gnostic,  or  Perfect  Christian.     Knowledge. 


CONTENTS. 

I'AGE 

Motives.     Grand  Conceptions  of  God.     Prayer.     The  whole  Life  a 
Festival.     Spirituality 141-151 


ORIGEN,  AND  HIS  THEOLOGY. 

CHAPTER  1. 

The  Alexandrian  Theology.  Birth  and  Parentage  of  Origen.  His 
Childhood.  He  pants  for  the  Honors  of  Martyrdom.  Reduced  to 
Poverty,  and  becomes  a  Teacher.  At  the  Head  of  the  Catechetical 
School.     His  Self-Denial.     Studies.     Biblical  Criticism.  .         .  152-159 

CHAPTER  II. 

Influence  of  Ambrose.  Origen's  Immense  Labors.  His  Arabian  Jour- 
ney, and  Visit  to  Palestine.  Reception  by  the  Palestinian  Bishops. 
Anger  of  Demetrius.  Origen's  Journey  to  Greece.  Ordained  in 
Palestine.     Deposed  and  Excommunicated 160-164 

CHAPTER  III. 

Origen  retires  to  Palestine.  New  Pupils.  His  Critical  and  Theologi- 
cal Studies.  Imprisoned,  and  put  to  the  Rack.  Dies  at  Tyre.  His 
Memory  long  persecuted.  Question  of  his  Salvation.  His  Intellect- 
ual Character.     Merits  and  Defects  as  an  Expositor.         .         .  165-171 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Writings  of  Origen.  Commentaries.  Principles  of  Interpretation. 
His  Book  "  Of  Principles."  His  "  Hexapla."  His  Work  against 
Celsus 172-178 

CHAPTER  V. 

Inferiority  of  the  Son.  Hippolytus;  a  new  AVitness.  Origen  asserts 
that  the  Father  and  Son  are  two  Distinct  Beings ;  that  the  Father  is 
Greater  than  the  Son.  Specimens  of  his  Language  and  Reasoning. 
Christ  is  not  an  Object  of  Supreme  Worship,  and  not  to  be  ad- 
dressed in  Prayer.  The  Spirit  below  the  Son.  Eternal  Generation. 
The  Material  Creation  Eternal.  The  Logos  Doctrine  and  the  Ro- 
man Church.  The  Monarchians,  Theodotus,  Artemon,  Praxeas, 
Noetus,  Beryllus.     The  Atonement 179-193 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Origen's  System  of  Rational  and  Animated  Natures.  All  Souls  Pre- 
existent.  Purpose  of  the  Material  Universe.  The  Stars  animated, 
and  will  be  judged.  Tutelar  Spirits.  Demons.  Present  Condition 
the  Result  of  Former  Trial.  Extent  of  Christ's  Redemption.  Ce- 
lestial Natures.  Origin  of  Sin.  Human  Ability.  No  Uncondi- 
tional Election.         ...  ....  194-201 


CONTENTS.  XI 

CHAPTER   VII.  PAGE 

Origen's  Views  of  the  Future.  The  Resurrection.  Form  of  the  Fu- 
ture Body,  Round.  Bodies  of  the  Damned,  Black.  The  Final 
Consummation  will  be  the  Perfection  and  Happiness  of  all,  includ- 
ing Fallen  Spirits  of  Darkness.  Matter  to  become  spiritualized. 
Variation  in  his  Opinions.  Perpetual  Lapses  and  Returns.  Fate 
of  the  Oi'igenian  Doctrines.  Appealed  to  by  the  Arians.  Con- 
demned a  Century  and  a  Half  after  Origen's  Death.  Origenism 
finds  Shelter  in  the  Monasteries.  Freedom  of  Theological  Specula- 
tion   202-213 


WRITERS  SUBSEQUENT    TO   THE   TIME  OF  ORIGEN, 

AND  BEFORE  THE  RISE  OF  THE  ARIAN 

CONTROVERSY. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Sabellius  and  Sabellianism.  Paul  of  Samosata.  The  Scholars  of 
Origen.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria.  Accused  of  Heterodoxy.  Ex- 
tracts. The  Term  "  Consubstantial."  Gregory  Thaumaturgus. 
Depresses  the  Son  to  the  Rank  of  a  Creature,  or  Work.  Thcog- 
nostus.  Quoted.  Pierius.  Photius's  Report  of  his  Opinions.  Me- 
thodius. His  Language  savors  of  Arianism.  Lucian.  His  Learn- 
ing and  Merits.  His  Opinions.  Most  of  the  Arian  Chiefs  were  of 
his  School ...  214-226 

CHAPTER  XL 

Cyprian,  Makes  the  Son  Subordinate.  Confounds  the  Spirit  with 
the  Logos.  Novatian.  Believed  in  the  Derived  Nature  and  Inferi- 
ority of  the  Son.  Proofs.  How  he  preserved  the  Unity  of  God. 
His  Views  of  the  Spirit.  Arnobius.  How  he  speaks  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  Lactantius.  His  Learning  and  Eloquence.  Un- 
sound on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  in  the  Modern  Sense.  Passages 
quoted 227-238 


ARIUS,  AND  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Conflict  of  Doctrine.  Belief  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers.  Account 
of  Arius.  Origin  of  the  Controversy.  Popularity  of  Arius.  His 
Person  and  Msinners.  Progress  of  the  Controversy.  Arius  is  ex- 
pelled from  Alexandria,  and  retires  to  Palestine.  How  received  by 
the  Bishops  there.     Eusebius  of  Nicomedia.     Palestinian  Council. 


S-li  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Anus's  Letter  to  his  Bishop.     Alexander  writes  Letters  to  all  parts. 
Tongues  instead  of  Spears 239-250 

CHAPTER  II. 

Constantine  interferes.  Council  of  Nice.  Its  Character.  Opinions 
of  Arius.  Proceedings  of  the  Council.  Difficulty  in  Framing  a 
Symbol.  Eusebius  of  Cfesarea  offers  a  Creed.  Result.  Non- sub- 
scribing Bishops.  Condemnation  and  Exile  of  Arius.  Constantine 
afterwards  espouses  his  Cause.  His  Return  to  Alexandria.  Atha- 
nasius.  Council  of  Jerusalem  readmits  Arius  to  Communion.  Exile 
of  Athanasius.  Last  Days  of  Arius.  Death,  Character,  and  Writ- 
ings.    The  "  Thalia." 251-272 

CHAPTER  ni. 

Success  and  Decline  of  Arianism.  Long  survived  in  the  West.  The 
Goths  receive  it.  Influence  of  the  Ladies.  The  Friends  and  Co- 
adjutors of  Arius.  Eusebius  of  Nicodemia,  Theognis  of  Nice,  and 
Eusebius  the  Historian.  Fortunes  of  Athanasius :  his  Wanderings 
and  Death,  Writings  and  Character 273-281 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Nicene  Faith.  Meaning  of  "  Consubstantial."  Athanasius's  Ex- 
planation of  it.  Father  and  Son  relatively  Unequal :  so  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  taught.  Sentiments  of  the  Orthodox  afterwards  undergo 
a  Change.  The  Holy  Spirit  not  defined  by  the  Council.  Not  as 
yet  safe  to  speak  of  its  Divinity.  Variations.  Doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  still  unsettled 282-28S 


EUSEBIUS,  THE  HISTORIAN. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Claims  of  Eusebius  to  our  Notice.  His  Early  Life.  Bishop  of  Caes- 
area.  His  Studies.  The  Arian  Controversy.  The  Part  he  took 
at  the  Council  of  Nice.  Subscribes  the  Creed.  His  Pastoral  Letter 
in  Explanation.  Want  of  Firmness.  Presides  at  the  Council  of 
Tyre.  Dedication  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre.  The 
Emperor  warmly  attached  to  him.  Death  and  Character.  His 
real  Belief.  Not  a  Consubstantialist.  Held  the  old  Doctrine  of  the 
Derived  Nature  and  Inferiority  of  the  Son.  Proofs  from  his  Writ- 
ings. ...  290-305 


CONTENTS.  XIU 

CHAPTER  n.  PAGB 

Credit  to  which  Eusebius  is  entitled  as  an  Historian.  Charges  against 
him.  Value  of  his  Materials.  His  Authorities.  Tradition.  Lost 
Writings.  Writings  still  extant.  Contemporaneous  History.  Lit- 
erary Merit  of  Eusebius's  Work 306-314 


THE  APOSTLES'  CREED. 


CHAPTEE  I. 


The  Apostles'  Creed  not  the  Primitive  Creed.  Was  not  framed  by 
the  Apostles.  Testimonies  of  the  Learned.  Unfounded  Tradition 
as  to  its  Origin.  Older  Creeds.  Original  Form  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed.  Comparison  of  it  with  the  Roman  and  Oriental,  and  that 
of  Aquileia.  The  Clause  "  Descended  into  Hell."  The  Apostolical 
Constitutions.  No  Early  Notice  of  them.  Not  of  Apostolic  Origin. 
Time  of  their  Composition.  Their  Arian  Complexion.  Old  Form 
of  Ascription 315-330 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Fathers  as  Expositors.  Change  in  the  Meaning  of  Terms  and 
Phrases.  Language  of  the  Fathers.  Examples.  In  what  Points 
the  Trinity  of  the  Fathers  differed  from  the  Modern.  Testimony 
of  the  Learned.  Petavius,  Huet,  Prof  Stuart.  The  Fathers  testify 
against  each  other.     Councils.     The  Athanasian  Creed.      .         331-342 


HYMNOLOGY  OF  THE  ANCIENT  CHURCH. 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Hymnology  of  the  Ancient  Church  not  Trinitarian.  Singing 
among  the  Early  Christians.  First  Regular  Choir.  Flavian  of 
Antioch.  Ambrose.  Gregory.  Hymns  of  the  Primitive  Church 
lost.  Earliest  Writers  of  Hymns.  Bardesanes.  Harmonius. 
Ephrem.  Attempt  of  Paul  of  Samosata  to  restore  the  Old  Music 
and  Hymns 343-352 

CHAPTER  II. 

Arius  and  Others,  Writers  of  Hymns.    The  "  Te  Deum."    Prudentius. 
The  Poetical  Fathers.     Nocturnal  Street-singing  at  Constantinople. 
Council  of  Laodicea  attempts  to  regulate   Church  Music.      Sim- 
plicity of  the  Ancient  Doxology.     No  Trace  of  the  Trinity.     353-359 
1 


Xiv  CONTENTS. 


ARTISTIC  REPRESENTATIONS  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

CHAPTER  I.  PAGk 

Remains  of  Ancient  Christian  Art  bear  Testimony  to  the  Late  Origin 
of  the  Trinity.  The  Father :  how  represented.  Earlier  and  Later 
Representations  of  the  Son 360-365 

CHAPTER  11. 

The  Glory,  or  Nimbus,  in  Symbolic  Art.  Nature  of  the  Glory.  Forms 
of  the  Nimbus  and  the  Cross.  Significance  of  the  Nimbus.  Repre- 
sentations of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Later  Representations  of  the  Trinity. 
No  early  Relic  recognizes  a  Co-equal  or  Undivided  Three.    .      368-376 


FESTIVALS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  CHRISTIANS. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Festivals  of  the  Ancient  Christians  disclose  no  Element  of  the  Trinity. 
Weekly  Festival  of  Sunday.  Easter,  the  Oldest  Annual  Festival. 
Old  Ideas  of  Lent.  Pentecost,  or  Whitsunday.  No  other  Annual 
Festival  known  in  the  Time  of  Origen.     Epiphany.    .         .         377-387 

CHAPTER  II. 

Christmas :  first  celebrated  on  the  Fifth  of  January.  Uncertainty 
about  the  Time  of  Christ's  Birth.  Testimony  of  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria. Chrysostom's  Testimony  to  the  Late  Origin  of  the  Festival 
in  the  East.  Order  of  the  Christian  Festivals.  Dr.  Milman's  State- 
ment. Late  Origin  of  Christmas  explained.  No  Trinitarianism  in 
either  of  the  Old  Festivals 388-396 

Index 399-41C 


flMOLOGIOitL 
PRELIMINARY    CHAPTER 


WRITINGS  ASCRIBED   TO   THE   APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS^ 
SO   CALLED. 

Reasons  for  Noticing  them.  —  Clement  op  Rome.  —  Claim  op  one  of 
THE  Epistles  attributed  to  him  to  be  received  as  Genuine.  —  Its 
Date  and  Character.  —  Its  Theology.  —  Christ  a  Distinct  Being 
FROM  THE  Father,  AND  Subordinate.  —  Shepherd  op  Hermas.  —  Its 
Authorship  and  Date. — Asserts  the  Preexistence  of  the  Son,  but 
excludes  his  Supreme  Divinity.  —  The  Ignatian  Letters.  —  Re- 
cently discovered  Syriac  Version.  —  Polycarp.  —  Epistle  ascribed 
TO  HIM. — Its  Theology.  —  Not  Trinitarian.  —  Barnabas.  —  The 
Epistle  which  goes  under  his  Name  of  Uncertain  Authorship. — 
Teaches  Christ's  Preexistence,  but  not  his  Equality  with  the 
Father.  —  General  Summary.  —  Concluding  Remarks. 

In  treating  of  the  lives  and  opinions  of  some  of  the  Fathers 
of  the  Church,  down  to  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  the 
question  may  possibly  occur.  Why  begin  with  Justin  Martyr  ? 
Were  there  none  before  him  ?  The  reply  is,  most  of  those  who 
went  before  are  to  us  little  else  than  shadows  seen  through  the 
dim  mist  of  antiquity,  —  their  outlines  too  imperfectly  defined 
to  admit  of  accurate  description  or  analysis.  They  are  blood- 
less phantoms,  well-nigh  formless  and  void.  The  record  of 
their  lives  has  perished,  or  is  so  blended  with  fable,  that  it  is 
impossible  to  separate  fact  from  fiction.  If  we  inquire  for  their 
writings,  we  encounter  darkness  and  uncertainty  at  every  step. 
Some  curiosity,  however,  may  be  felt  to  know  which,  if  any, 
of  the  writings  ascribed  to  those  fathers  are  entitled  to  respect 
as  probably,  or  possibly,  genuine  ;  and  what,  genuine  or  forged, 
they  teach  on  topics  particularly  discussed  in  the  present  vol- 
ume. Our  purpose  in  this  preliminary  chapter  is  to  say 
something  on  these  subjects.  The  writings  to  which  we  refer 
are  those  generally  which  pass  under  the  name  of  the  Apos- 


4  APOSTOLIC   FATHERS. 

tolic  Fathers,  so  called  from  having  been,  as  tradition  says, 
hearers,  or,  at  least,  contemporaries  of  the  Apostles.  We 
begin  with 

Clement  of  Rome. 

Clement  presided  over  the  Church  of  Rome  at  an  early 
period,  and  is  called  its  bishop.  Whether  he  was  the  Clem- 
ent mentioned  by  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians 
(iv.  3)  as  his  fellow-laborer,  is  uncertain.  The  genuineness, 
in  the  main,  of  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  attributed 
to  him,  —  written  in  the  name  of  the  church  at  Rome,  — 
though  not  established  beyond  dispute,  has  no  shght  external 
evidence  in  its  favor.  It  may  be  accepted  as,  for  the  most 
part,  genuine,  though  it  has  come  down  to  us  only  in  a  single 
manuscript,  and,  as  Mr.  Norton  observes,  "  this  copy  is  con- 
siderably mutilated ;  in  some  passages  the  text  is  manifestly 
corrupt,  and  other  passages  have  been  suspected  of  being 
interpolations."  *  This  opinion  Mr.  Norton  shares  with  many 
learned  and  judicious  critics,  who  have  been  unwilling  to 
acknowledge  the  whole  piece  to  have  been  a  pure  fabrication. 
Neander  asserts  that  it  is  "  not  exempt  from  important  inter- 
polations," and  that  we  find  in  it  a  "  possible  contradiction," 
showing  that  if  genuine  in  part,  it  is  not  wholly  so.f 

The  Epistle,  which  was  written  in  Greek,  was,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  publicly  read  in  many  churches 
before  his  time,  and  in  his  own  day.$  In  some  places  it  con- 
tinued to  be  read  in  public,  it  would  seem,  down  to  the  time 
of  Jerome,  who  lived  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  and  early 
in  the  fifth  century. §  Neither  of  these  writers  expresses  any 
doubt  of  its  genuineness. 

But  whether  genuine  or  not,  it  is  undoubtedly  an  early 
document,  supposed  to  have  been  written  near  the  end  of  the 

*  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.,  Additional  Notes,  p.  ccxli.,  2d  edit. 

t  Bist.  of  the  Christian  Religion  and  Church,  i.  668,  Torrey's  translation. 

$  Hist.,  iii.  16,  and  iv.  23.  [It  was  received  as  genuine,  apparently  by  Heg- 
esippus,  and  certainly  by  Dionysius  of  Corinth  (a.  d.  170),  Irenasus,  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,  and  Origen.  Eusebius  (iii.  38)  speaks  of  it  "  as  univer- 
lally  acknowledged."  —  Ed.] 

§  De  Viris  Illust.,  o.  15. 


CLEMENT    OF   ROME.  6 

tirst  century.*  If  that  be  the  date  of  the  composition,  it  was 
in  existence  from  a  third  to  half  a  centmy  before  Justin  Mar- 
tyr —  in  whose  works,  still  extant,  no  mention  of  it  occurs  — • 
wrote  his  first  Apology.  Independently  of  the  position  of  its 
reputed  author,  its  antiquity,  if  nothing  else,  entitles  it  to  notice 
in  the  inquiry  in  which  we  are  now  engaged.  What  traces, 
then,  does  it  contain  of  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity? 
It  contains  not  the  faintest  trace  of  the  supreme  divinity  of  the 
Son  or  of  the  Spirit. 

The  contents  of  the  Epistle  are  almost  entirely  practical,  and 
it  has  very  little  to  do  with  speculative  theology  of  any  sort, 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  constituting  a  large  portion 
of  it.  Speaking  of  the  Christology  of  Clement,  Bunsen,  as 
above  referred  to,  says,  "  It  is  preposterous  to  ask  him  after  the 
three  Persons  of  the  Pseudo- Athanasian  creed."  Nor,  we  add, 
does  Justin's  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  as  a  great  preexistent 
power,  a  hypostatized  attribute,  by  whom,  as  his  instrument  or 
minister,  God  performed  the  act  of  creation,  appear  in  tlie 
Epistle.  God  made  all  things  by  a  direct  exertion  of  his 
power.  "  By  his  almighty  power  he  established  the  heavens, 
and  by  his  incomprehensible  wisdom  he  adorned  them.  He 
also  divided  the  earth  from  the  water,  ....  and  the  living 
creatures  that  are  upon  it  he  called  into  being  by  his  com- 
mand  With  his  holy  and  pure  hands  he  also  formed  man, 

the  most  excellent  of  all,  and  in  intellect  the  most  exalted,  the 
impress  of  his  own  image."  f  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  own 
image,  after  our  own  likeness,"  etc.,  is  quoted,  but  no  intima- 
tion is  given  that  the  author  supposed  it  addressed  to  the  Son. 
God  is  sole,  infinite,  and  supreme  Creator  of  the  material  uni- 
verse, using  no  instrument  or  artificer  (rational  power  or  Logos) 
to  execute  his  commands.  The  doctrine  of  Philo  and  the 
Alexandrians  is  not  found  in  the  Epistle.  Its  language  is  far 
more  simple  than  that  of  Philo  and  the  Platonizing  fathers. 

If  we  turn  to  the  new  moral  or  spiritual  creation,  we  shall 
find,  that,  whenever  God  and  Christ  are  spoken  of  in  con- 
nection with  it,  the  author  makes  a  broad  distinction  between 

*  Bunsen  says,  between  the  years  78  and  86.     Christianity  and  Mankind,  (oi 
Hippolytus  and  his  Age,)  i.  44. 
t  Cap.  33. 


6  APOSTOLIC   FATHERS. 

the  supreme,  infinite  One,  the  fountain  of  all  peace  and  love, 
and  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  the  benefits  of  his  mercy  were 
conveyed  to  the  world.  Of  this  we  have  an  example  at  the 
very  commencement  of  the  Epistle.  Thus,  "  by  the  will  of 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  "  ;  and  again,  "  Grace  and 
peace  from  Almighty  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  be  multi]:)lied 
unto  you."  And  this  distinction  is  observed  throughout  the 
Epistle.  Prayer  is  mentioned  as  addressed  to  God  and  not  to 
Christ.  God  "  sends  ";■  Jesus  is  "sent."  "The  Apostles 
preached  to  us  from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  Jesus  Christ  from 
God.  Christ  thei'efore  was  sent  from  God,  the  Apostles  from 
Christ;  both  being  fitly  done  according  to  the  will  of  God."* 

Jesus  Christ  is  "  the  high  priest  of  our  offerings Through 

him  we  look  up  to  the  heights  of  heaven Through  him 

the  eyes  of  our  hearts  were  opened Through  him  would 

the  Sovereign  Ruler  (6  oeo-7roT??s)  have  us  to  taste  the  knowledge 
of  immortality."  f  So  all  is  of  God.  Referring  to  the  resur- 
rection the  author  says,  God  has  "  made  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
the  first  fruits,  raising  him  fi-om  the  dead."  J  He  is  mentioned 
as  the  "  chosen "  of  the  Father,  but  nothing  is  said  of  his 
nature,  nor  is  his  preexistence  distinctly  asserted  in  any  part 
of  the  Epistle,  though  some  have  professed  to  find  an  intima- 
tion of  it  in  certain  expressions  employed  by  the  writer,  which, 
however,  prove  nothing  to  the  point.§  He  is  called  "  the  scep- 
tre of  the  majesty  of  God,"  ||  language  which  implies  instru- 
mentality, not  identity  or  equality  of  person.  The  term  God 
is  not  once  applied  to  him.  But  he  is  clearly  distinguished 
from  the  one  only  God  in  the  following  passages,  in  addition  to 
those  already  given.  "  Have  we  not  one  God,  and  one  Christ, 
and  one  spirit  of  grace  (or  love)  poured  out  upon  us  ? " 
Again,  the  writer  speaks  of  "the  true  and  only  God";  the 
"  great  artificer  and  Sovereign  Ruler  of  all "  ;  "  the  all-seeing 
God  and  Ruler  of  spirits  and  Lord  of  all  flesh,  who  chose  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  ^  In  what  different  language  the  Son  is 
spoken  of  has  been  already  seen. 

*  Cap.  42.  t  Cap.  36.  %  Cap.  24. 

§  See  Martini,  Versuch  einer  pragmat.  Geschichte  des  Dogma  von  der  Gottheii 
Christi,  etc.,  p  24. 
II  Cap.  16.  ir  Cap.  46,  43,  20,  68. 


CLEMENT   OF  EOME.  7 

We  have  quoted,  we  believe,  the  highest  expressions  applied 
to  Christ  in  the  Epistle.  Certainly  his  supreme  divinity  is 
nowhere  t<aught  in  this  relic  of  Christian  antiquity.  That  he 
is  a  distinct  being  from  the  Father,  and  altogether  subordinate, 
is  the  prevailing  idea  of  the  whole  composition.  Photius,  Pa- 
triarch of  Constantinople  in  the  ninth  century,  complains  that 
the  writer  of  the  Epistle,  though  "  he  calls  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  our  high  priest  and  leader,  yet  does  not  ascribe  to  him 
the  divine  and  higher  qualities."  *  That  is,  says  Lardner,  "  in 
modern  language,  it  is  a  Socinian  Epistle."  Certainly  the 
language  of  Photius  is  very  significant,  coming  from  such  a 
source,  f 

The  ascription  of  "glory,"  or  "glory,  dominion,"  etc., 
occurs  six  times  in  the  Epistle.  In  four  of  these  cases  God  is 
expressly,  clearly,  and  unequivocally  the  object.  Thus,  "  the 
omnipotent  God,  ....  to  whom  be  glory  forever  and  ever."  $ 
Again,  "  the  Most  High,  ....  to  whom  be  glory  forever  and 
ever."  §     Again,  "  God  who  chose  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, . . . 

*  Bib/iolk.,  cod.  126  ;  torn.  i.  p.  95,  ed.  Bekker. 

t  An  argument  for  the  deity  of  Christ,  founded  on  the  misconception  of  a 
passage  in  Clement's  Epistle,  is  thus  disposed  of  by  a  writer  in  the  Christian 
Examiner  for  May,  1860 :  —  "  Nor  does  Clement  anywhere  use  the  expression 
'  the  passion  of  God,'  or  anytliing  like  it.  Tiie  passage  referred  to  is  cap.  2 
of  his  genuine  Epistle  to  tlie  Corinthians,  where  we  have  the  expression 
na&ri^aTa  avTov,  —  rov  ■Qeov  indeed  being  the  nearest  antecedent.  If  we  insist 
that  he  wrote  with  strict  grammatical  accuracy,  and  reject  the  conjectural 
emendation  of  Junius  (Young),  a  Trinitarian,  of  /la&fjiiaTa  for  na^TJiiara,  (the 
Epistle  being  extant  in  but  a  single  manuscript,)  we  simplj-  make  Clement  a 
Patripassian ;  for  the  term  -deoc  in  every  other  pnssage  of  the  Epistle  unques- 
tionably denotes  the  Father.  But  even  Dorner,  in  his  great  work  {Lchre  von 
der  Person  Christi,  i.  139),  says  that  he  'does  not  venture  to  use  this  passage 
as  a  proof  that  Clement  calls  Christ  God.'  He  adopts  the  easy  supposition  of 
a  negligent  use  of  the  pronoun  ahro^,  referring  to  Christ  in  the  mind  of  the 
writer,  though  not  named  in  the  immediately  preceding  context.  The  same 
view  of  the  passage  is  taken  by  Bunsen,  Hippolytus  and  his  Age,  i.  46,  note, 
2d  ed. ;  by  Martini,  Ferswc/i,  etc.,  p.  24,  note;  and  by  Reuss,  Theologie  Chre- 
tienne,  ii.  326,  2e  ed.  Of  this  use  of  avTog  we  have  another  remarkable  exam- 
ple in  Clement,  c.  36,  and  it  is  not  uncommon  in  the  New  Testament,  especially 
in  the  writings  of  John;  see  Winer,  Gram.  §  22.  3.  4,  6th  ed.,  and  Robinson's 
N.  T.  Lex.,  article  airof,  2.  b.  ad  Jin.  This  passage  is  the  sole  straw  to  which 
those  can  cling  who  maintain  that  Clement  of  Rome  believed  in  the  deity  of 
Christ ;  a  notion  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  whole  tenor  of  his  language  it 
every  other  part  of  his  Epistle." — pp.  466,  467. 

X  Cap.  32.  §  Cap.  46. 


8  APOSTOLIC   FATHERS. 

through  whom  be  glory  and  majesty,  power,  honor  unto  him 
both  now,  and  forever  and  ever."  *  Once  more,  in  the  ascrip- 
tion at  the  close  of  the  Epistle,  we  have,  "  The  grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you  and  with  all  that  are  anywhere 
called  by  God  through  him  ;  through  whom  be  unto  him  (God) 
glory,  honor,  might,  and  majesty,  and  eternal  dominion,  from 
everlasting  to  everlasting."  In  these  passages  the  "glory, 
dominion,"  etc.,  are  expressly  ascribed  to  God,  either  abso- 
lutely and  without  reference  to  Christ,  as  in  the  first  and  sec- 
ond instances,  or  through  Jesus  Christ,  as  in  the  last  two.  In 
one  of  the  remaining  instances  we  have  simply,  "  Chosen  by 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  to  whom  be  glory  forever 
and  ever  "  ;  f  and  in  the  other  a  similar  construction.^  If  the 
ascription  here  is  to  be  referred  to  the  nearer,  and  not,  as  is 
possible,  to  the  remoter  antecedent,  by  a  negligence  of  syntax 
of  which  there  are  known  examples  in  the  New  Testament 
and  in  the  writings  of  Christian  antiquity,  there  is  no  difficulty 
in  reconciling  it  with  the  supremacy  of  the  Father,  so  strongly 
asserted,  or  necessarily  implied,  in  the  current  language  of  the 
Epistle.  The  Scriptures  ascribe  glory  and  dominion  to  Christ, 
but  a  derived  glory  and  dominion,  God  having  '•'•made  him 
both  Lord  and  Christ,"  and  ^'-  given  him  a  name  above  every 
name."  §  With  this  the  language  of  the  Epistle  is  throughout 
consistent. 

We  repeat,  in  conclusion,  one  searches  in  vain,  in  the  Epistle 
ascribed  to  this  Apostolic  Father,  for  those  views  of  the  Logos, 
as  a  personified  attribute  of  the  Father,  which  are  so  promi- 
nent in  the  writings  of  the  philosophical  converts  to  Christian- 
ity. The  language  employed  is  more  scriptural,  the  thoughts 
less  subtle  and  metaphysical,  the  author  being  content  to  rep- 
resent God  as  the  fountain  of  all  power  and  blessing,  and  Jesus 
Christ  as  his  Son,  sent  by  him  to  be  the  Saviour  of  men.  The 
Father  is  above  all ;  his  glory  and  majesty  are  underived  ;  the 
Son  derives  from  him  his  power  and  dignity,  his  offices  and 
dominion.  Such  are  the  teachings  of  this  old  relic  of  the 
primitive  ages.  The  personality  of  the  Spirit  is  not  one  of  its 
doctrines. 

*  Cap.  58.  t  Cap.  60.  J  Cap.  20. 

§  See  Acts,  ii.  33,  36 ;  Philippians,  ii.  9 ;  Ephesians,  i.  20-22 ;  1  Peter, 
;    21. 


THE    SHEPHERD    OF    HERMAS.  9 

What  is  called  Clement's  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
or  the  fragment  of  it  which  is  preserved,  has  no  title,  as  the 
best  critics  agree,  to  be  received  as  genuine.  Eusebius  says 
that  it  was  quoted  by  no  ancient  writer.*  There  are  other 
compositions  which  have  been  ascribed  to  Clement,  but  they 
are  all  by  competent  critics  now  rejected  as  spurious. 


The  Shepherd  of  Hermas. 

There  is  a  Hermas  mentioned  by  St.  Paul  (Romans  xvi.  14), 
to  whom  this  work  has  been  attributed.  It  is  undoubtedly  an 
ancient  writing.  Eusebius  speaks  of  it  as  publicly  read  in  the 
churches,!  and  Jerome  tells  us  that  it  was  read  in  some 
churches  of  Greece,  that  is,  if  we  understand  him,  in  his  day, 
but  that  it  was  almost  unknown  to  the  Latins.  J  Both  name 
Hennas  as  the  reputed  author,  but  neither  affirms  that  he  was 
so.  Both  speak  with  hesitation  and  reserve.  The  work  is 
also  quoted  or  referred  to  by  Iren^us,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Tertullian,  and  Origen.  Justin  Martyr  does  not  quote  it.  It 
has  been  ascribed  to  the  end  of  the  first  century.  But  Mr. 
Norton,  who  discusses  the  question  of  its  date  with  his  usual 
acuteness  and  learning,  concludes  from  evidence  furnished  by 
a  "  fragment "  of  Christian  antiquity  published  by  Muratori 
in  1740,  that  it  was  "  not  written  till  about  the  year  150."  § 

Bunsen,  who  also  uses  the  Muratorian  fragment,  attributed 
by  him  to  Hegesippus,  arrives  at  a  conclusion  not  very  dis- 
similar. He  supposes  that  the  "fragment  "  was  written- about 
the  year  170.  It  says  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  that  it  was 
"  written  at  Rome  very  recently,  in  our  own  times,  by  Her- 
mas ;  while  his  brother  Pius  occupied  the  episcopal  chair. 
Now,  according  to  the  vulgar  chronology,  Pius  became  Bishop 
of  Rome  a.  d.  142 ;  Bunsen  makes  the  time  of  his  episcopate 
xo  extend  from  a.  d.  132  or  133  to  157.  Either  chronology, 
Bunsen's  or  the  vulgar,  would  authorize  Mr.  Norton's  infer- 
ence in  regard  to  the  time  of  the  composition.  Bunsen,  how- 
ever, thinks  that  he  is  able  to  show,  "  from  the  book  itself,'' 

*  Hist.,  iii.  38.  t  Hist.,  iii.  3  and  25.  J  De  Vir.  lIlusL,  c.  10. 

§  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.,  Additional  Notes,  p.  ecxlviii.,  etc. 


10  APOSTOLIC    FATHERS. 

that  it  was  written  in  139  or  140.*  This,  if  it  be  so,  does  not 
conflict  very  materially  with  Mr.  Norton's  opinion.  But 
whether  we  adopt  the  year  140  or  150  as  the  date,  is  of  little 
importance  so  far  as  concerns  our  present  inquiry.  We  may 
safely  refer  its  origin  to  about  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, or  a  little  earlier.f  It  was  written  in  Greek,  but  the 
original  was  long  supposed  to  be  lost,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  fragments  preserved  in  quotations  ;  and  until  lately  we  have 
possessed  it  only  in  an  ancient  Latin  translation.  [The  Greek 
text  was  first  published  at  Leipsic  in  1856,  or  rather  in  De- 
cember, 1855,  by  Rudolph  Anger,  with  a  preface  by  William 
Dindorf,  and  more  accurately  by  Tischendorf  in  Dressel's 
edition  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  Leipsic,  1857.  These  edi- 
tions were  founded  on  a  manuscript  of  Hermas  discovered  by 
the  notorious  Constantino  Simonides  at  Mount  Athos,  three 
leaves  of  which,  with  a  copy  of  the  rest,  he  sold  to  the  Uni- 
versity of  Leipsic.  The  defects  of  that  manuscript,  which  is 
of  the  filieenth  century,  and  presents  a  very  corrupt  text,  have 
been  partially  supplied  by  Tischendorf 's  great  discovery  of  the 
"  Codex  Sinaiticus,"  which  he  assigns  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century.]  This  manuscript  was  found  in  the  monastery  of  St. 
Catharine,  on  Mount  Sinai,  in  1859,  and  contains  the  greater 
part  of  the  Old  Testament  (in  Greek),  and  the  whole  of  the 
New,  together  with  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  about  one 
fourth  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  in  the  original  Greek.  J    The 

*  Christianity  and  Mankind,  i.  184.  See  the  Muratorian  Fragment  itself, 
in  Bunsen's  Analecta  Ante-Niccena,  i.  137. 

t  Neander  (Hist.,  i.  660)  mentions  the  hypothesis  which  ascribes  its  origin 
to  about  the  year  156,  and  thinks  that  there  are  some  objections  to  tlie  suppo- 
sition of  so  late  a  date  ;  but  how  much  earlier  he  would  place  it,  he  does  not 
say.     He  attributes  but  little  weight  to  the  Muratorian  document. 

I  [The  Codex  Sinaiticus  was  published  in  the  Litter  part  of  the  year  1862, 
in  four  folio  volumes,  magnificently  printed  in  fac-simile  type,  at  the  expense 
of  the  Russian  government.  The  edition  consisted  of  three  hundred  copies, 
of  which  only  one  hundred  were  placed  on  sale,  for  the  benefit  of  the  editor, 
the  remainder  being  distributed  as  presents  by  the  Emperor  of  Eussia.  A 
cheap  edition,  however,  in  ordinary  type,  of  the  portion  containing  the  New 
Testament,  with  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  fragments  of  Plermas,  was  pub- 
lished by  Tischendorf  at  Leipsic  in  1863,  in  one  volume,  quarto.  The  same 
year  the  unsold  copies  of  Dressel's  edition  of  the  Patres  Apostolici  were  issued, 
with  a  Supplement,  also  sold  separately,  containing  a  complete  collation  of  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas  and  the  portion  of  Hermas  found  in  the  Sinaitic  manu- 


THE  SHEPHERD  OF  HERMAS.  11 

two  latter  books,  when  the  manuscript  was  written,  appear  to 
have  been  classed,  in  some  churches,  with  the  canonical  writ- 
ings of  the  New  Testament ;  though  as  to  the  production  of 
Hermas,  Niebuhr,  as  Bunsen  tells  us,  used  to  say  that  he 
"  pitied  the  Athenian  Christians  for  being  obliged  to  hear  it 
road  in  their  assemblies." 

The  work  consists  of  three  books,  —  Visions,  Commands, 
and  Similitudes,  the  two  latter  being  communicated  to  the 
writer,  as  he  says,  by  an  angel  in  the  guise  of  a  shepherd ; 
hence  the  title  of  the  work.  It  is  a  wild  book.  The  writer 
seems  to  have  been,  in  some  sense,  an  imitator  of  St.  John  in 
the  Revelation,  at  least  to  have  read  the  Apocalypse  ;  and  in  his 
visions  and  similitudes  he  gives  great  license  to  his  imagination. 
Mr.  Norton's  comparison  of  the  work  to  Bunyan's  "  Pilgrim's 
Progress  "  is  sugp'estive  and  forcible. 

In  a  writing  of  such  a  character  we  can  hardly  expect  to 
find  much  which  admits  of  quotation,  relating  to  the  doctrines 
of  a  speculative  theology.  It  has  a  great  deal  to  say  of  God, 
and  "  living  to  God,"  of  allegorical  personages  and  angels,  and 
little,  in  comparison,  of  Jesus  Christ.  God  appears  in  it,  and 
God  only,  as  the  Supreme  and  Infinite  One,  the  sole  inde- 
pendent creator  and  governor  of  the  universe,  who  alone  is 
eternal.  The  first  Command  begins  :  "  First  of  all  believe 
that  there  is  one  God,  who  created  and  formed  all  things  out 
of  nothing.  He  comprehends  all,  and  is  alone  immense ;  who 
can  neither  be  defined  by  words,  nor  conceived  by  the  mind." 

Similar  phraseology  ascribing  the  act  of  creation  directly 
to  God  repeatedly  occurs.  Thus,  "  God,  who  dwelleth  in 
heaven,  hath  made  all  things  out  of  nothing  "  ;  *  —  "  who  by 
his  invisible  power  and  his  excellent  wisdom  made  the  world  "  ;  f 
—  who  "  ruleth  over  all  things  and  hath  power  over  all  his 
creatures."  ^     Thus  he  is  supreme,  sole  maker  and  governor 

script,  with  tha  Greek  text  previously  published.  Besides  the  common  Latin 
text  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  Dressel's  edition  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers 
rontains  another  ancient  Latin  version,  discovered  by  him  in  the  Codex  Pala- 
tinus  150,  of  the  fourteenth  century.  The  readings  of  this  version  he  describes 
as  often  better  than  those  of  the  common  text,  and  in  doubtful  cases  almost 
always  preferable.  In  1860  an  ancient  iEthiopic  version  of  Hermas  was  pub- 
lished at  Leipsic,  with  a  Latin  translation,  by  A.  d'Abbadie.  This  also  afForda 
»ome  assistance  in  settling  the  text.  —  Ed.] 
*  Vis.  i.  c.  1.  t  lb.  c.  3.  t  Sim.  ix.  c.  28. 


12  APOSTOLIC    FATHERS. 

of  the  universe.  True,  in  the  Simihtude  just  quoted,  the 
writer,  referring  to  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God,  says  the 
"  wliole  world  is  supported  by  it."  *  This,  if  it  do  not  point 
to  the  new  spiritual  creation  under  Christ  its  head,  seems  to 
conflict  with  what  is  elsewhere  asserted,  that  God  created  and 
governs  all  things  by  a  direct  act  of  his  power.  Possibly  the 
writer  may  have  believed,  according  to  the  doctrine  about  that 
time  beginning  to  develop  itself,  that  the  Fathei"  made  use  of 
the  Son  as  his  instrument  in  creating  and  ruhng  the  world, 
though  the  prevailing  form  of  expression  throughout  the  work 
implies  the  contrary.     Martini  ascribes  this  belief  to  him.f 

Throughout  the  work,  however,  the  highest  titles  and  epi- 
thets are  applied  to  God,  never  to  the  Son,  who  is  subject,  and 
receives  all  from  the  Father.  Thus  in  the  fifth  Similitude : 
"  Having  blotted  out  the  sins  of  his  people,  he  showed  to  them 
the  paths  of  life,  giving  them  the  law  which  he  had  received 

of  the  Father He  is  Lord  of  his  people,  having  received 

all  power  from  his  Father."  1^ 

By  the  "  first  created  Spirit,"  in  the  following  passage,  emi- 
nent critics.  Martini  and  Bunsen  among  the  number,  suppose 
is  meant  Christ.  This  seems  to  us  incontestable.  The  pas- 
sage, according  to  the  text  adopted  by  Martini,  reads  thus  : 
"  That  Holy  Spirit,  which  was  created  first  of  all,  God  placed 
in  a  body  in  which  it  should  dwell,  in  a  chosen  body,  as  it 
pleased  him."  §  Bunsen  varies  the  punctuation  somewhat  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  passage,  giving  what  he  calls  a  "  recon- 
stituted text,"  which,  however,  does  not  affect  what  is  said  of 
the  Spirit  as  "  created  ||  first  of  all,"  the  reading  which   he 

*  Sim.  ix.  c.  14.  t   Versuch,  etc.,  pp.  27,  28. 

J  Sim.  V.  c.  6.  §  Sim.  v.  c.  6. 

II  "  Created"  (creatus).  There  is  here  a  difference  of  reading.  In  the  text 
of  some  editions  we  have  infusus  instead  of  creatus.  Creatus,  we  conceive, 
has  tlie  best  manuscript  authorities  in  its  favor.  Martini  says,  tliat  the  old 
manuscript  authorities  have  creatus,  and  tliat  infusus  is  a  later  interpolation. 
Bunsen  adopts  creatus  on  the  authority  of  the  Dresden  and  other  manu- 
scripts. The  Lambetii,  Carmelite,  and  Vatican  have  creatus ;  and  thus 
t'roin  a  collection  of  manuscripts  and  editions  Grabe  corrects  the  te.xt.  [This 
is  also  the  reading  of  the  independent  Latin  version  contained  in  tlie  Codex 
Palatinus;  and  Dressel,  in  his  edition  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  adopts  it  as 
genuine.  The  Greek  text  of  the  passage  in  the  manuscript  of  Simonides  is 
peculiar,  and,  when  compared  with  the  old  Latin  versions,  leads  one  to  sus- 
pect that  the  original  has  been  altered  on  dogmatic  grounds.   It  is  as  follows  . 


THE   IGNATIAN   LETTERS.  13 

adopts,  and  which  Archbishop  Wake  also  follows.  The  "  Son 
of  God,"  says  Bunsen,  "  is  the  Holy  Spirit."  He  claims  that 
his  explanation  is  neither  Athanasian  nor  Arian ;  certainly  it 
is  not  Athanasian.  It  savors  strongly  of  Arianism,  however, 
as  it  makes  Christ  a  created  being,  and  possibly  this  work, 
ascribed  to  Hermas,  may  have  been  one  of  the  ancient  writings 
referred  to  by  the  Arians,  when  they  asserted  that  their  doc- 
trine was  that  of  the  old  Christians.  The  early  Fathers, 
it  is  to  be  observed,  frequently  confounded  the  Son  with  the 
Spirit, 

The  following  passage,  which  affirms  the  preexistence  of 
the  Son,  but  not  his  eternity,  the  Arians  might  have  used 
without  scrapie.  "  This  rock  and  this  gate  are  the  Son  of 
God.     I  replied.  Sir,  how  can  that  be  ?  seeing  the  rock  is  old, 

but  the  gate  new He  answered.  The  Son  of  God  is 

indeed  more  ancient  than  any  creature,  so  that  he  was  in 
counsel  with  his  Father  at  the  creation  of  all  things.  But  the 
gate  is  therefore  new  because  he  appeared  in  the  last  days, 
even  the  fulness  of  time."  *  The  preexistence  of  the  Son, 
which  is  not  distinctly  asserted  in  Clement's  Epistle,  no  doubt 
an  earlier  writing,  here  clearly  enough  appears. 

The  Ignatian  Letters. 

We  pass  over  the  Epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius  with  slight 
notice,  regarding  them  as  of  too  uncertain  authorship,  and  too 
hopelessly  corrupt,  to  justify  the  use  of  them  in  connection  with 
our  present  inquiry.f     As  to  the  bearing  of  the  Epistles  in 

rd  nvEi<(ia  to  uyiov  to  npoov,  to  KTiaav  naaav  tt/v  ktIoiv,  KarcjKiaev  6  iJcof  eig  cupKa 
tjv  7j^ov2.ETo,  "  the  preexisting  holy  spirit  which  created  the  whole  creation  God 
caused  to  dwell  in  a  body  which  he  chose."  The  ^thiopic  version,  which 
gives  a  very  free  rendering  of  the  whole  chapter,  reads,  "  The  holy  spirit 
which  created  all  things  dwelt  in  a  body  which  he  chose."  The  fragment 
of  Hermas  contained  in  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  does  not  include  this  passage.  — 
Ed.]  See  Notes  to  the  Amsterdam  and  recent  Paris  editions ;  also  Bunsen, 
Christianity  and  Mankind,  vol.  i.  pp.211,  212  (Hippolytus) ;  Martini,  Versuck, 
etc.,  p.  28.   Archbishop  Wake  seems  to  have  followed  the  Lambeth  manuscript. 

*  Sim.  ix.  c.  12. 

t  We  shall  not  attempt  to  argue  the  question  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
fgnatian  Letters,  but  shall  content  ourselves  with  a  few  observations  and 
references.  What  is  called  the  "  testimony  of  antiquity  "  in  their  favor  ia 
too  meagre,  too  loose,  and  not  sufficiently  early,  and  one  of  the  pieces  referred 


14  APOSTOLIC    FATHERS. 

the  recently  discovered  Syriac  version  on  the  question  of  the" 
behef  of  the  old  Christians  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  we 

to  of  too  suspicious  a  eliaracter  to  prove  anj'thing  against  the  internal  evidence 
of  the  Letters  themselves.  The  passage  quoted  in  this  connection  from  Poly- 
carp  cannot  be  reconciled  with  other  parts  of  his  Epistle,  and  there  can  be 
little  doubt  is  an  interpolation.  As  to  the  "  general  consent  of  the  learned," 
it  may  well  surprise  one  to  hear  it  appealed  to  at  the  present  day  in  favor  of 
either  of  tiie  old  recensions,  though  the  shorter  has  found  more  advocates  than 
the  longer.  They,  however,  if  such  there  be  among  living  men,  who  imag- 
ine that  Pearson's  Vindicire,  etc.,  preceded  by  the  labors  of  Usher  and 
Vossius,  and  intended  as  an  answer  to  Daille,  set  the  question  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  this  recension  "at  rest  forever,"  cannot  have  given  attention  to  the 
record  of  theological  literature  in  Germany  from  the  time  of  Larroque's  "Re- 
ply "  in  1674  to  the  publication  of  the  recently  discovered  Syriac  version,  as 
is  clearly  enough  shown  by  Cureton  in  his  Vindicice,  etc.,  (pp.  15-19,  and 
Appendix.)  London,  1846 ;  and  in  his  Corpus  Ignatianwn,  (Preface  and 
Introduction,)  London,  1849.  Cureton  thinks  that  "many  of  the  arguments 
which  he  (Pearson)  advances,  to  say  the  least,  very  much  weaken,  if  they  do 
not  nullify,  one  another"  ;  to  which  remark  he  appends  the  following  note: 
"  In  the  whole  course  of  my  inquiry  respecting  the  Ignatian  Epistles  I  have 
never  met  with  one  person  who  professes  to  have  read  Bishop  Pearson's  cele- 
brated book  ;  but  I  was  informed,  by  one  of  the  most  learned  and  eminent  of 
the  present  Bench  of  Bishops,  that  Person,  after  having  perused  the  Vindicice, 
had  expressed  to  him  the  opinion  that  it  was  a  very  unsatisfactory  work." 
(Corpus  Ifputtianum,  Preface,  p.  xiv.) 

The  publication  of  Cureton's  Syriac  manuscripts,  in  1845,  introduced  a  new 
element  of  uncertainty  into  the  controversy.  Cureton  claims  that  his  Syriac 
version,  which  is  much  shorter  than  the  shortest  of  the  old  Greek  recensions 
(the  English  translation  of  the  whole  three  Letters  being  comprised  within 
five  pages  of  his  Corpus  Ignaiianum),  represents  the  authentic  text  of  all  the 
genuine  Epistles  we  possess  of  the  old  Martyr.  Some  learned  men  of  Ger- 
many, among  whom  Bunsen  was  conspicuous,  sustained  Cureton's  view  ; 
others,  and  among  the  rest  Hilgenfeld,  Hefele,  and  Baur,  took  decided  ground 
against  it.  The  opinion  of  English  critics,  too,  was  much  divided.  The  result 
of  all  is,  that  the  arguments  of  those  who  would  be  glad  to  believe  that  we 
possess  some  relic  of  the  venerable  martyr  of  Antioch,  entitled  to  be  pro- 
nounced genuine,  and  who  look  for  it  in  either  of  the  old  recensions,  have 
been  weakened  rather  than  strengthened  within  the  last  few  years,  and  we 
are  further  than  ever  from  being  able  to  appeal  to  the  "  general  consent  of  the 
learned  "  in  favor  of  any  genuine  text  or  version  of  these  celebrated  Letters. 

For  some  account  of  the  opinions  and  controversy  respecting  the  Epistles 
in  question,  see  Cureton's  volumes  already  referred  to  in  this  note ;  also  the 
copious  references  given  by  Hagenbach  [Text-Book  of  the  Histori/  of  Doc- 
trines, vol.  i.  pp.  65,  66,  New  York,  1861).  These  references  relate  more  par- 
ticularly, but  not  exclusively,  to  the  questions  raised  by  the  publication  of  the 
Syriac  text  of  Cureton.  We  now  hear  little  of  the  Syriac  version;  and  we 
♦v'ill  add  only  that  the  discussion  which  grew  out  of  its  discovery  and  pub- 
lication has  not  shaken  our  confidence  in  the  conclusion,  that  the  time  for 
quoting  the  Ignatian  Letters,  in  one  or  another  form,  as  genuine,  in  support 
of  any  point  either  of  history  or  doctrine,  has  gone  by. 


POLYCARP.  15 

Inay  affirm,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  what  Martini 
asserts  of  the  shorter  recension  of  the  seven  Epistles,  —  which 
critics  generally  have  preferred  to  the  longer,  as  entitled  to  be 
pronounced  genuine  if  the  claim  could  be  established  in  favor 
of  either,  —  that  the  divinity  of  the  Son  cannot  be  found  in  it, 
at  least,  in  such  form  as  would  satisfy  "  Nicene-Athanasian 
orthodoxy,"  is  equally  true  of  the  recently  produced  Syriac 
text.*  The  most  material  difference  we  notice  is,  that  while 
the  Syriac  text  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  closes  with  "Jesus 
Christ  our  God,"  the  Greek  and  old  Latin  recensions  both  have 
simply  "Jesus  Christ,"  —  "our  God"  being  added  in  the 
Syriac  version.  This  has  a  suspicious  look.  But  even  this 
will  not  satisfy  Athanasian  orthodoxy.  No  one  doubts  that 
Christ  was  called  God  before  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nice, 
but  not  God  in  the  highest  sense. 

Epistle  of  Polycarp. 

We  now  come  to  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna, 
to  the  Philippians.  Irenaeus  tells  us  that  he,  in  his  youth, 
knew  Polycarp  well,  that  he  was  acquainted  with  his  manner 
of  life,  his  person,  and  discourses. f  Polycarp,  he  says,  was 
a  disciple  of  the  Apostles,  and  conversed  with  those  who  had 
seen  the  Lord.  Jerome  makes  him  a  disciple  particularly  of 
John  ;  J  and  Irengeus  says,  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  relating 
to  him  conversations  he  had  with  that  venerable  man.  Accord- 
ing to  Jerome  he  was  ordained  by  John.  The  time  of  his 
birth  and  death  cannot  be  ascertained,  though  it  is  certain  that 
he  lived  to  a  very  great  age,  and  that  he  ended  his  days  by 
martyrdom.  The  learned  diifer  as  to  the  date  of  this  event, 
some  placing  it  as  early  as  147,  others,  among  whom  is  Bun- 
sen, §  as  late  as  169.  His  death,  if  the  relation  given  in  the 
Letter  of  the  church  of  Smyrna  to  the  other  churches  on  the 
subject  of  his  martyrdom  is  to  be  relied  upon,  was  in  the  last 
degree  noble  and  affecting,  though  portions  of  the  narrative 
certainly  have  the  air  of  fable.  The  genuineness,  in  the  main, 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  ascribed  to  him,  though  called 

*   Versuch,  etc.,  p.  28.  t  Euseb.  Hist.,  iv.  14,  and  v.  20. 

}  De  Vir.  Illust.,  c.  17.  §  Christianity  and  Mankind,  i.  224. 


16  APOSTOLIC   FATHERS. 

in  question  by  some  among  the  older,  as  well  as  more  recent 
critics,  and  denied  by  those  of  the  Tiibingen  school,  who  make 
Polycarp  a  "  mythical  personage,"  there  is  no  sufficient  reason, 
perhaps,  for  doubting.  Mr.  Norton  receives  it  as  a  genuine 
relic  of  the  martyr,  with  the  exception  of  a  passage  near  the 
end  relating  to  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  to  which  he,  in  common 
with  other  critics,  takes  exception,  as  bearing  clear  marks  of 
interpolation  or  forgery.*  It  is  supposed  to  have  originally 
ended  with  the  doxology  in  the  twelfth  chapter.  The  early 
part  of  the  second  century  is  assigned  as  the  probable  date  of 
its  composition. 

The  Epistle,  which  is  mostly  hortative,  and  retains  the  old 
simplicity  of  thought  and  expression,  is  brief,  and  will  help  us 
very  little  in  our  inquiry  as  to  what  Christians  of  that  day 
believed  concerning  the  origin  and  precise  rank  of  the  Son. 
Its  testimony  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Father,  and  the  subordi- 
nation of  the  Son,  however,  is  clear  and  decisive.  Thus  we 
are  saved  "  by  the  will  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ "  ;  — 
*'  who  died,  and  was  raised  again  by  God  for  us."  f  Again, 
the  writer  speaks  of  believing  in  "him  who  raised  up  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead,  and  gave  him  glory  and 
a  throne  at  his  right  hand;  to  whom  all  things  in  heaven 
and  on  earth  are  made  subject,  whom  every  living  creature 
shall  worship  "  ;  $  not,  however,  as  siipreme.  The  prevailing 
language  of  the  Epistle  teaches  the  contrary.  So  in  the  fol- 
lowing quotation :  "  Now  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  he  himself,  the  everlasting  high-priest,  the 
Son  of  God,  Jesus  Christ,  build  you  up  in  faith  and  truth."  § 
Here  the  Son  is  sufficiently  distinguished  from  the  Father. 
The  high-priest  makes  an  offering  to  God,  but  is  not  God 
himself. 

Such  passages,  scattered  over  the  short  Epistle,  show  clearly 
enough  that  this  old  martyr  had  no  conception  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  equal  with  God,  or  as  one  with  him  except  in  will  and  pur- 

*  Genuineness  of  (he  Gospels,  vol.  i.,  Additional  Notes,  p.  ccxliv.,  etc. 

t  Cap.  1,  9. 

J  Cap.  2.  [(jnuaa  nvorj  TMTpevaei  (so  two  MSS. ;  common  reading  lar/jfm). 
"to  wlioni  every  living  creature  will  pay  religious  service."  Comp.  1  Cor 
XV.  27  ;  Phil.  ii.  9-11 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  22 ;  Rev.  v.  13.  —  Ed.] 

§  Cap.  12. 


BARNABAS.  "  17 

pose.  Here  are  no  metaphysics,  no  confusion  or  obscurity,  no 
hair-splitting  distinctions.  The  Father  is  separated  from  the 
Son  by  a  broad  and  distinct  hne,  one  as  supreme,  tlie  other  as 
subordinate  ;  one  as  giving,  the  other  as  receiving ;  the  Father 
granting  to  the  Son  a  "  throne  at  his  right  hand." 


Epistle  of  Baenabas. 

This  has  been  ascribed  to  Barnabas,  the  companion  of  St. 
Pauh  But  the  best  modern  critics  generally  agree  in  assert- 
ing that  he  was  not  the  author.  Mr.  Norton,  who  has  no  hes- 
itation in  saying  that  it  was  not  written  by  Barnabas,  the 
companion  of  St.  Paul,  thinks  that  it  dates  from  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  not  far  from  the  time  when 
Justin  Martyr  wrote  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho.*  It  was  not, 
as  he  argues  from  internal  evidence,  written  by  a  Jew,  or  a 
Jewish  Christian.  Bunsen  says  that  it  was  written  by  a  Gentile, 
and  that  it  is  an  "  Alexandrian  production."  f  He  attributes 
to  it  a  "  high  antiquity  "  ;  he  thinks  that  it  was  written  soon 
after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  that  it  is  as  old  as  the  Epistle  of 
Clement,  and  consequently  was  anterior  by  about  fifteen  years 
to  the  Gospel  of  John.  But  it  is  difficult  to  answer  Mr. 
Norton's  arguments,  referring  it  to  a  later  period,  which,  as 
he  observes,  would  preclude  it  from  occupying  a  place  with 
"  writings  of  Apostolical  Fathers." 

Neander  says,  "  we  cannot  possibly  recognize  in  this  pro- 
duction the  Barnabas  who  was  deemed  worthy  to  take  part  as 
a  companion  in  the  apostolical  labors  of  Paul."  But  unlike 
Mr.  Norton  and  Bunsen,  he  ascribes  it  to  a  "  Jew  of  the  Alex- 
andrian school,  who  had  embraced  Christianity."  In  support 
of  this  opinion  he  assigns  several  reasons.  He  allows  Bar- 
nabas, the  companion  of  St.  Paul,  no  part  in  the  composition. 
"  The  Epistle,"  he  says,  "  is  all  of  a  piece,  and  cannot  possi- 
bly be  separated  into  two  parts,  of  which  Barnabas  was  the 
author  of  one,  and  somebody  else  of  the  other."  J 

*  Genuineness  of  the  Guspels,  vol.  i.,  Additional  Notes,  p.  ccl.,  etc. 

t  Christianity  arid  Mankind,  i.  53-57. 

t  Hist,  of  the  Christian  Religion,  etc.,  i.  667,  658. 

2 


18  APOSTOLIC    FATHERS. 

Until  the  recent  discovery  of  the  Sinaitic  manuscript  by 
Tischendorf,  pubhshed  in  1863,  we  possessed  the  Epistle  only 
in  a  corrupt  and  mutilated  form.  Its  value,  in  any  view  we 
may  take  of  it,  is  not  great.  Portions  of  it  are  weak,  puerile, 
and  extravagant ;  and  the  author  betrays  a  fondness  for  alle- 
gory, far-fetched  conceits,  and  forced  and  mystical  interpreta- 
tions, conformable  to  the  Alexandrian  taste. 

But  what  does  it  teach  of  the  Saviour?  It  undoubtedly 
recognizes  his  preexistence.  He  is  called  the  "  Lord  of  the 
whole  earth,  to  whom  God  said  before  the  constitution  of  the 
world,  '  Let  us  make  man,'  "  etc.*  As  God's  instrument  in 
the  creation  it  might  be  said  that  the  sun  was  the  "  work  of  his 
hands."  f  Throughout  the  Epistle,  however,  the  supremacy 
of  the  Father  is  maintained.  This  it  is  impossible  to  deny. 
The  author  refers  to  Psalm  ex.  1  and  Isaiah  xlv.  1,  to  prove 
that  both  David  and  Isaiah  call  Jesus  "  Lord,  and  the  Son  of 
God."  But  in  both  these  texts  Jesus,  if  referred  to  at  all,  is 
clearly  distinguished  from  the  supreme  God,  with  whom  the 
writer  of  the  Epistle  has  evidently  no  intention  of  confounding 
him,  or  making  him  a  co-equal.  Nor  in  speaking  of  Jesus  as 
the  Son  of  God  does  he  make  any  allusion  to  the  metaphysical 
doctrine  of  the  Logos,  so  prominent  in  the  writings  of  Justin 
Martyr  and  the  Platonizing  Fathers  after  his  day. 

TJie  meaning  of  the  words,  "  In  him  and  to  him  are  all 
things,"  J  is  sufficiently  explained  by  the  connection  in  which 
they  stand.  All  things  in  the  old  dispensation,  as  the  writer 
believed  and  argued,  had  reference  to  Christ.  "  In  him  and 
to  him  "  were  all.  The  brazen  serpent,  as  he  says,  and  much 
else,  pointed  to  him.  All  types  and  figures  had  their  fulfilment 
in  him,  who  in  the  fiilness  of  time  was  to  come.  So  reasoned 
a  certain  class  of  writers,  to  which  the  author  of  this  Epistle 
belonged,  adopting  in  full  extent  the  allegorical  and  mystical 
mode  of  interpretation,  indulging  their  fancy  rather  than  con- 
sulting their  reason.  § 

The  personality  of  the  Spirit  does  not  appear  in  the  Epistle, 
but  only  such  expressions  as  these :  "  The  Spirit  of  God 
orophesieth,  saying,"  etc. ;  "  The  Holy  Spirit  put  it  into  the 

*  Cap.  5.  t  Ibid.  J  Cap.  12. 

§  See  Souverain,  Le  Plotonisme  devoile,  p.  170. 


CONCLUDING   REMAEKS.  19 

heart  of  Moses,"  —  phraseology  which  it  needs  no  argnment  at 
this  time  of  day  to  prove  does  not  imply  personality. 


Thus  of  the  mass  of  writings  ascribed  to  the  Apostolic  Fa- 
thers we  find  two  only  —  the  first  Epistle  of  Clement  and  the 
very  brief  one  of  Polycarp  —  whose  claims  to  be  considered  as 
wholly  or  in  part  genuine  can  be  admitted.  Even  the  genu- 
ineness of  these  has  been  contested  by  critics  of  note,  and  we 
possess  neither  of  them  in  its  entireness  and  purity.  Two 
of  the  others  may  be  considered  as  dating  from  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  and  are  not  therefore  to  be 
numbered  among  the  writings  of  Apostolic  Fathers.  Of  the 
rest  the  date  and  authorship  cannot  be  determined,  though 
they  want  evidence  of  a  very  early  Christian  antiquity.* 

One  word  in  regard  to  the  Logos-doctrine,  as  developed  by 
Justin   Martyr  and  the  learned  writers  of  a  subsequent  age. 

*  The  reader  who  has  accompanied  us  in  the  foregoing  examination  of  tiie 
writings  ascribed  to  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  so  involved  in  obscurity  and 
doubt,  will  be  prepared  to  appreciate  the  beauty  and  force  of  the  following 
extract  from  the  Introduction  to  Dr.  Stanley's  History  of  the  Eastern  Church. 
In  passing  from  Christianity  as  we  see  it  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  Chris- 
tianity of  the  Fathers,  we  witness  a  great  change. 

"  No  other  change  equally  momentous,"  says  Dr.  Stanley,  "has  ever  since 
affected  its  fortunes,  yet  none  has  ever  been  so  silent  and  secret.  The  stream, 
in  that  most  critical  moment  of  its  passage  from  the  everlasting  hills  to  the 
plain  below,  is  lost  to  our  view  at  the  very  point  where  we  are  most  anxious 
to  watch  it ;  we  may  hear  its  struggles  under  the  overarching  rocks  ;  we  may 
catch  its  spray  on  the  boughs  that  overlap  its  course ;  but  the  torrent  itself 
we  see  not,  or  see  only  by  imperfect  glimpses.  It  is  not  so  much  a  period  for 
ecclesiastical  history  as  for  ecclesiastical  controversy  and  conjecture.  A  frag- 
ment here,  an  allegory  there ;  romances  of  unknown  authorship ;  a  handful 
of  letters  of  which  the  genuineness  of  everj'  portion  is  contested  inch  by  inch  ; 
the  summary  examination  of  a  Roman  magistrate ;  the  pleadings  of  two  or 
three  Christian  apologists ;  customs  and  opinions  in  the  very  act  of  change ; 
last,  but  not  least,  the  faded  paintings,  the  broken  sculptures,  the  rude  epi- 
taphs in  the  darkness  of  the  catacombs,  —  these  are  the  scanty,  though  attrac- 
tive, materials  out  of  which  the  likeness  of  the  early  Church  must  be  repro- 
duced, as  it  was  working  its  way,  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  word,  '  under 
ground,'  under  camp  and  palace,  under  senate  and  forum,  — '  as  unknown, 
yet  well  known ;  as  dying,  and  behold  it  lives.'  This  chasm  once  cleared, 
vie  find  ourselves  approaching  the  point  where  the  story  of  the  Church 
once  more  becomes  history."  —  pp.  xxxvi.,  xxxvii. 


20  APOSTOLIC    FATHERS. 

That  it  does  not  appear  in  the  writings  ascribed  to  any  of  the 
Bo-called  Apostolic  Fathers  of  whom  we  possess  any  hterary 
remains,  may  be  regarded  as  an  estabhshed  fact ;  and  a  most 
significant  one  it  is.  The  absence  of  all  traces  of  the  doctrine 
in  these  writings  can  be  explained  only  on  the  supposition  that 
the  authors  "  did  not,"  in  the  words  of  Souverain,  "  find  it  in 
the  Christian  religion,  nor  in  the  Jewish,  and  not  having  studied 
in  the  school  of  Plato,  they  could  not  import  it  from  that  school 
into  the  church  of  Christ."  *  Hagenbach  concedes  that  the 
authors  of  these  writings  "  do  not  make  any  use  of  the  peculiar 
doctrine  of  the  Logos."  f  Semisch,  after  observing  that  the 
most  ancient  Fathers  of  the  Church,  in  their  speculative 
inquiries  relating  to  the  person  of  Christ,  took  their  direction 
from  Philo,  whose  doctrine  of  the  Logos  was  their  "  starting- 
point,"  adds :  "  We  except,  however,  the  so-called  Apostolic 
Fathers.  Every  such  application  of  the  idea  of  the  Logos  was 
foreign  to  their  minds."  J  A  most  important  exception  truly, 
as  bearing  on  the  argument  of  the  present  volume. 

*  Le  Platonisme  devoil^,  p.  176. 

t  Text-book,  etc.,  First  Period,  §  42. 

I  Justin  Mai-tyr,  ii.  177, 178,  Ryland's  translation. 


JUSTIN  MARTYR,  AND   HIS   OPINIONS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Claims  op  Justin  on  our  Notice.  —  Birth,  and  Early  Studies.  —  Dis- 
satisfaction WITH  his  Teachers.  —  His  Despondency.  —  His  Recep- 
tion OF  Platonism.  —  His  Conversion.  —  His  Dialogue  with  Try- 
PHO.  —  Writes  his  First  Apology.  —  His  Second.  —  His  last  Days, 
and  Martyrdom. 

Among  the  great  writers  and  teachers  of  the  ancient  church, 
Justin,  called  the  Philosopher  and  Martyr,  claims  our  first 
notice ;  not  as  the  brightest  and  most  transcendent  of  the 
group,  yet  as  a  learned  man  and  a  sincere  Christian,  and  the 
first  of  the  disciples  of  the  cross  of  whom,  after  the  days  of 
the  Apostles,  we  possess  any  remains  the  genuineness  of  which 
has  not  been  brought  into  question.  It  is  true,  we  have  a  mass 
of  writings  ascribed  to  an  earlier  period.  But,  with  slight 
exceptions,  their  date  and  authorship,  as  we  have  seen,  are 
involved  in  uncertainty.  Many  of  them  are  palpable  forgeries ; 
and  others  have  come  down  to  us  in  so  corrupt  a  state,  or  are 
so  disfigured  by  interpolations,  that,  for  any  purpose  of  history 
or  doctrine,  their  value  as  authorities  is  nearly  worthless. 

Of  the  writings  just  referred  to,  ascribed  to  the  so-called 
"  Apostolic  Fathers,"  we  have  treated  at  sufficient  length  in 
our  Preliminary  Chapter.  Next  follow  the  Apologists,  two  of 
whom  preceded  Justin.  These  are  Quadratus,  and  Aristides 
of  Athens,  both  of  whom  pi'esented  "Apologies  for  Christian- 
ity," addressed  to  the  Emperor  Hadrian,  the  immediate  prede- 
cessor of  the  first  Antonine.  Of  these  two  Apologies  nothing 
is  preserved  except  a  few  lines  from  Quadratus,  quoted  by 
Eusebius  the  historian.*     In  this  fragment  he  speaks  of  some 

*  Hist.,  iv.  3. 


22  JUSTIN    MAKTYR. 

who  were  healed  and  some  who  were  raised  from  the  dead  by 
Christ  as  having  hved  to  his  own  times.  We  know  not  the 
date  of  Quadratus's  birth.  His  Apology  is  said  to  have  been 
offered  in  the  tenth  year  of  Hadrian's  reign,  —  the  year  1 26 
of  our  era.  His  recollection,  however,  might  have  extended 
back  some  distance  into  the  first  century.  He  is  i*eportcd  to 
have  been  a  hearer  of  the  Apostles,  and  certainly  might  have 
been  of  John. 

This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  an  obscure  period  of  Christian 
history.  With  Justin  Martyr,  we  emerge  from  a  region  of 
darkness,  and  find,  at  least,  some  straggling  rays  of  light.  His 
writings  possess  peculiar  interest  from  the  age  to  which  they 
belong,  and  the  circumstances  which  gave  them  birth.  They 
carry  us  back  to  the  former  part  of  the  second  century,  —  a 
period  not  very  remote  from  the  death  of  the  last  of  the  little 
band  who  saw  and  conversed  with  Jesus,  and  were  commis- 
sioned to  teach  in  his  name.  As  a  record  of  facts,  they 
furnish  useful,  though  not  very  ample,  materials  of  history. 
They  have  excited  attention,  too,  if  they  do  not  derive  impor- 
tance, from  the  rank  and  early  studies  of  their  author.  He  is 
the  first  to  make  us  acquainted  with  Grecian  culture  in  its 
connection  with  Christian  thought.  Jerome  speaks  of  him  as 
imitating  the  earlier  apologist,  Aristides ;  but  how  much  is 
meant  by  the  assertion,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  Aristides  is 
called  by  Jerome  a  "  most  eloquent  "  man  :  but  what  his  phil- 
osophical opinions  were,  we  are  not  informed ;  nor  is  it  known 
how  far  he  may  have  been  chargeable  with  having  taken  the 
mitiatory  step  in  destroying  the  simplicity  of  the  Christian 
doctrine,  which  disappeared  amid  the  decided  Platonism  of 
Justin  and  his  successors,  especially  the  great  teachers  of  the 
Alexandrian  School.  That  the  writings  emanating  from  this 
school,  along  with  those  of  Justin,  who  led  the  way,  introduced 
darkness  and  error  into  the  theology  of  the  period  —  error 
which  was  transmitted  to  subsequent  times,  and  from  the  over- 
shadowing effects  of  which  the  Christian  world  has  not  yet 
fully  recovered  —  admits,  in  our  opinion,  of  no  denial. 

There  was  that,  however,  in  the  character  of  Justin,  which 
commands  our  admiration.  He  was,  in  many  respects,  a  light 
and  ornament  of  his  age.     He  labored  with  zeal,  if  not  with 


BIRTH    AND   EARLY   STUDIES.  23 

discretion,  in  the  cause  of  his  Master ;  and,  having  obtained 
the  honors  of  martyrdom,  left  a  name  which  the  gratitude  of 
Christians  has  dehghted  to  cherish. 

Materials  are  wanting  for  an  extended  biographical  notice 
of  Justin.  The  little  we  know  of  him  is  culled  chiefly  from 
his  own  writings.  They  have  preserved  a  few  incidents  of 
his  life ;  and  tradition  has  added  a  little,  though  but  little,  to 
the  stock.  From  himself  we  learn  that  he  was  a  native  of 
Palestine,  and  was  born  at  Flavia  Neapolis,  the  ancient  She- 
chem, — called  Sychar  in  the  New  Testament,  now  Nablus, — 
a  city  of  Samaria,  and,  as  Josephus  informs  us,  the  metropolis 
of  that  country  at  the  time  Alexander  entered  Judaea.  Here, 
probably,  his  ancestors  had  for  some  time  resided,  since  he 
calls  the  Samaritans  his  nation  and  race ;  though  we  are 
authorized  to  infer,  from  his  own  expressions,  that  he  was  of 
Pacran  extraction :  and  his  education  was  certainly  Heathen. 
Of  his  father  and  grandfather  he  has  told  us  only  the  names. 
That  of  the  former  was  Priscus;  and  that  of  the  latter, 
Bacchius. 

The  precise  time  of  Justin's  birth  cannot  be  ascertained  with 
certainty :  but  it  must  have  very  nearly  coincided  with  that 
of  the  death  of  St.  John  the  evangelist ;  being  late  in  the  first 
century,  or  very  early  in  the  second  (probably  about  the  year 
103);  though  there  have  not  been  wanting  those  who  have 
carried  it  as  far  back  into  the  first  century  as  the  year  89.  Of 
this  number  are  Fabricius,  Grabe,  and  others ;  whom  Otto, 
Justin's  latest  editor,  seems  inclined  to  follow.  To  this  e^rly 
date,  however,  there  are  serious  historical  objections. 

Justin  must,  as  it  would  appear,  have  been  born  and  bred 
in  easy  circumstances.  He  possessed  a  liberal  curiosity  and 
an  ardent  thirst  for  knowledge,  and  early  devoted  himself  to 
philosophical  studies.  He  had  conceived  a  high  opinion  of 
the  objects  and  uses  of  philosophy,  as  the  term  was  then  under- 
stood. It  was,  in  his  view,  the  only  treasure  worth  the  attain- 
ment ;  comprehending,  as  he  believed,  a  knowledge  of  all  that 
pertained  to  God  and  to  human  felicity.*  This  had  been 
sought  by  him,  as  he  informs  us,  in  the  schools  of  Zeno,  Aris- 

*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  102,  ed.  Par.,  1742 ;  to  which  all  our  references  are 
made,  unless  Thirlby's  or  Otto's  is  specified. 


24  JUSTIN    MAETYR. 

totle,  and  Pythagoras,  but  in  vain.  He  first,  he  tells  us  in  his 
Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  put  himself  under  the  tuition 
of  a  certain  Stoic.  With  him  he  remained  long  enough  to 
discover  that  he  could  impart  little  knowledge  of  God  ;  for  he 
possessed  little,  and  did  not  esteem  such  knowledge  of  any 
great  worth.  Justin  then  left  him,  and  betook  himself  to  one 
of  the  Peripatetic  School,  who  passed  with  himself,  says  he, 
for  a  very  astute  philosopher.  But,  demanding  a  stipulated 
fee  for  teaching,  Justin  leaves  him  in  disgust,  thinking  that 
very  unphilosophical.  Still  burning  with  a  desire  of  knowl- 
edge, he  next  selects  for  his  teacher  a  conceited  Pythagorean. 
This  man  demanded  of  those  who  proposed  to  become  hia 
pupils  a  previous  knowledge  of  music,  astronomy,  and  geome- 
try, as  tending  to  refine  and  elevate  the  conceptions,  and  thus 
assist  the  mind  to  comprehend  abstract  mental  truths,  and  rise 
at  last  to  the  contemplation  of  the  sole  good  and  fair.  Of  this 
preparatory  information  Justin  professed  himself  destitute  ;  and 
was  therefore  compelled  to  leave  him,  much  to  his  regret :  for 
this  man,  he  says,  really  "  appeared  to  know  something." 

Disappointed,  humbled,  and  chagrined,  Justin  now  seems 
for  a  time  to  have  resigned  himself  to  grief  and  melancholy, 
ignorant  whither  next  to  turn.  The  lofty  pretensions  of  the 
Platonists  at  length  awoke  him  from  his  dream  of  suspense. 
This  sect  was  then  in  great  repute,  as  teaching  transcendent 
truths  relating  to  God  and  the  universe ;  upon  which  subjects 
its  founder  had  discoursed  with  a  copiousness  and  eloquence 
which  charmed  the  imagination,  though  his  obscurity  and 
mysticism  might  occasionally  baffie  the  understandings,  of  his 
hearers.  To  one  of  these,  who  had  recently  taken  up  his 
abode  at  Neapolis  (where,  it  seems,  Justin  continued  to  reside), 
he  joins  himself;  and  his  fondest  hopes  appear  now  about  to 
be  realized.  His  attention  is  directed  to  subjects  congenial 
with  his  tastes  and  feelings.  Plato's  incorporeal  essences  de- 
lighted him.  The  contemplation  of  ideas  or  intelligible  forms, 
the  patterns  and  archetypes  of  things  visible,  added  wings  to 
his  imagination.  He  thought  himself  already  wise  ;  and,  in  his 
folly,  flattered  himself  that  he  should  soon  obtain  a  vision  of 
God :  for  this,  he  adds,  "  is  the  end  of  Plato's  philosophy."  * 
*  Dial,  cum  TrypL,  pp.  102-104 ;  Otto,  cc.  1,  2. 


HIS    CONVEESION.  25 

Justin  was  ardent,  imaginative,  and  strongly  inclined  to 
mysticism ;  and  hence  the  most  extravagant  dreams  of  the  Pla- 
tonists  found  a  ready  reception  with  him  ;  and  his  mind  soon 
acquired  a  taint  from  this  source,  which  was  never  removed. 
He  retained,  after  his  conversion,  his  former  partiality  for  the 
doctrine  of  ideas,  as  taught  in  the  Platonic  schools,  which  he 
considered  too  difficult  and  sublime  a  doctrine  to  have  origi- 
nated in  the  subtilest  human  genius ;  and  he  therefore  con- 
cluded that  Plato  must  have  stolen  "  so  great  a  mystery  "  from 
Moses,  who  speaks  of  an  exemplar,  type,  and  figure  (pre- 
existent  forms)  shown  him  on  the  mount. 

Full  of  enthusiasm,  and  impatient  of  interruption,  he  now 
resolves  to  fly  from  the  society  of  men,  and  bury  himself  in 
the  depths  of  solitude,  —  there  to  deliver  himself  up  to  his 
favorite  contemplations,  by  which  he  was  to  rise  to  a  vision 
of  the  Divinity.  For  this  purpose,  he  selects  a  retired  spot 
near  the  sea.  As  he  approached  this  spot,  he  observed,  he 
tells  us,  an  aged  man,  of  a  venerable  aspect,  grave,  but  with 
a  look  of  meekness,  following  him  at  a  little  distance  ;  and, 
turnino;,  he  entered  into  conversation  with  him.  The  con- 
ference  was  a  long  one ;  and  the  old  man,  adopting  somewhat 
of  the  Socratic  method,  appears  often  to  have  perplexed  his 
youthful  antagonist.  He  exposed  the  absurd  pretensions  of 
the  philosophers ;  pointed  out  the  futility  of  their  specula- 
tions ;  and  concluded  by  directing  his  attention  to  the  Hebrew 
prophets,  who  were  older  than  the  philosophers,  and  who 
alone,  he  affirmed,  saw  and  taught  the  truth,  and,  speaking 
by  divine  inspiration,  unfolded  visions  of  the  future.  But 
"  pray,"  says  he,  "  that  the  gates  of  light  may  be  opened  to 
thee ;  for  none  can  perceive  and  comprehend  these  things, 
except  God  and  his  Christ  grant  them  understanding."  Say- 
ing this,  the  old  man  departed,  and  was  seen  no  more.* 

Justin  is  impressed.  He  had  previously  witnessed  the  con- 
stancy of  the  martyrs ;  he  had  observed  the  tranquillity  and 
fortitude  with  which  they  encountered  death,  and  all  other 
evils  which  appear  terrible  to  man ;  and  he  justly  inferred, 
that  they  could  not  be  pi'ofligate  who  could  so  patiently  endure. f 
He  had  long  believed  them  innocent  of  the  crimes  imputed 
*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  cc.  3-8,  Otto.  t  Apol.  II.  c.  12,  p.  96, 


26  JUSTIN    MAKTTR. 

to  them.  He  was  now  prepared  to  think  that  they  held  the 
truth.  He  reflected  on  the  words  of  the  venerable  stranger, 
and  was  convinced  that  they  inculcated  the  "  only  safe  and 
useful  philosophy."  * 

Such  is  his  own  account  f  of  the  manner  in  which  he  became 
a  Christian,  or,  as  he  expresses  it,  a  philosopher ;  for  he  was 
fond  of  retaining  the  name,  as  he  also  continued  to  wear  the 
dress,  of  a  Grecian  sage.  Eusebius  $  informs  us  that  he 
preached  Christianity  in  the  philosophers'  garb,  —  a  sort  of 
coarse  or  cheap  mantle,  usually  of  a  dark  color,  similar  to  that 

*  Dial,  p.  108  ;  Otto,  c.  8. 

t  This  account,  as  we  have  said,  is  given  in  his  Dialogue  witli  Trypho ; 
and  may  therefore  be  received,  we  suppose,  as  a  genuine  history  of  his  con- 
version, even  if  the  dialogue  be  a  fictitious  composition,  after  the  manner  of 
Plato's  Dialogues.  This  species  of  writing,  in  which  imaginary  personages 
are  introduced  as  engaged  in  real  discourse  or  argument,  appears  to  have  been 
a  favorite  one  with  the  ancients.  Plato  had  adopted  it  with  success,  and  the 
charms  of  his  dialogues  were  universally  felt  and  acknowledged  ;  and  Cicero 
and  others  employed  it  after  him.  It  is  not  improbable  that  Justin,  wlio,  as 
we  know,  was  a  warm  admirer  of  Plato,  might  have  been  influenced  by  his 
example  to  attempt  a  style  of  composition  which  possessed  so  many  attrac- 
tions. That  this  was  actually  the  case,  we  think  the  pervading  tone,  in  fact 
the  whole  air  and  costume,  of  the  dialogue,  if  we  may  be  allowed  so  to  express 
ourselves,  afford  abundant  evidence.  We  can  never  persuade  ourselves  that 
Justin's  meek  and  supple  Jew  was  a  real  personage.  He  is  too  patient  of 
abuse,  and  concedes  too  much  to  his  antagonist.  Nor,  had  lie  been  a  learned 
Jew,  as  is  supposed,  —  whether  Rabbi  Tarphon,  as  some  will  have  it,  or  any 
other  Rabbi, —  would  he  have  allowed  Justin's  gross  blunders  in  Hebrew  chro- 
nology, historj%  and  criticism,  to  have  passed  without  censure.  That  he  might 
have  held  a  dispute  or  disputes  with  the  Jews,  is  highly  probable  ;  for  he  was 
not  accustomed  to  shrink  from  a  trial  of  his  strength  in  debate  :  and  that  the 
substance  of  one  or  more  of  these  interviews  may  have  been  retained  in  the 
dialogue,  or,  at  least,  have  furnished  hints  of  which  he  made  some  use,  is  quite 
as  probable.  From  these  and  other  materials  suggested  by  conversation  and 
reading,  the  piece  was  no  doubt  made  up  ;  but  the  style  and  dress,  tlie  rhetor- 
ical embellishment,  the  whole  form  and  structure,  are  Justin's.  It  is  no  more 
a  real  dialogue,  we  are  persuaded,  than  similar  compositions  of  Cicero  or  of 
Bishop  Berkeley.  He  borrowed,  unquestionably,  like  the  authors  of  fictitious 
vritings  generally,  from  real  life,  but  worked  up  his  rough  materials  accord- 
ing to  his  own  fancy  and  judgment;  and,  as  he  was  not  deficient  in  a  very 
complacent  opinion  of  his  own  abilities,  his  imaginary  antagonist  is  made  to 
treat  him  with  great  respect,  <and  yield  him  advantages  in  argument  which  a 
real  Jew  of  ordinary  shrewdness  would  not  have  given.  But  whether  the 
dialogue  be  fictitious  or  not  is  of  no  importance  ;  since,  in  either  case,  we 
must  suppose  it  to  furnish  a  true  record  of  Justin's  opinions,  and  of  the  pro 
Teas  by  which  he  became  a  Christian. 

I  Hist.,  iv.  11. 


HIS   CONVERSION.  27 

afterwards  worn  by  monks  and  hermits.  It  was  this  garb,  as 
we  learn  from  himself,  which  attracted  the  notice  of  Trypho 
the  Jew,  and  led  him  to  address  him  as  a  philosopher.  "  Hail, 
philosopher  !  "  is  his  first  salutation.  "  When  I  see  a  person 
in  this  garb,  I  gladly  approach  him,  with  the  expectation,"  he 
adds,  "of  hearing  something  useful,"  —  or  perhaps  in  the  hope 
of  amusement ;  for  he  was  surrounded  by  some  jeering  com- 
panions of  his  own  faith.* 

Of  the  date  of  his  conversion,  nothing  can  with  certainty 
be  affirmed.  The  year  132  or  133  of  the  common  era,  how- 
ever, is  usually  assigned ;  probably  with  some  near  approach 
to  truth.  Of  his  history  after  his  conversion,  few  notices 
occur  in  his  own  writings  ;  and  little  on  which  we  can  rely  is 
to  be  gathered  from  other  sources.  In  a  treatise  which  bears 
his  name,  though  its  genuineness  has  been  strongly  contested, 
we  find  incidental  mention  of  him  as  having  been  in  Campania 
and  Egypt ;  f  and  Ephesus  is  the  scene  of  his  celebrated  Dia- 
logue with  Trypho.  It  is  not  improbable  that  his  zeal  in  the 
cause  of  Christianity  may  have  led  him  to  visit  these  and  other 
places.  His  usual  residence,  however,  as  Eusebius  informs 
us,  J  was  at  Rome.  He  was  certainly  much  there  ;  and  if  the 
piece  called  the  "  Acts  of  his  Martyrdom  "  be  entitled  to  any 
credit  as  an  historical  memoir,  he  dwelt  at  a  place  called  Tim- 
othy's Baths,  on  the  Viminal  Mount,  where  he  conversed 
freely  with  all  who  resorted  to  him,  and,  b}'  discourse  and 
writings,  engaged,  as  occasion  offered,  in  defence  of  Christian- 
ity, and  fearlessly  met  and  repelled  the  foul  charges  brought 
against  its  professors. 

He  is  supposed  to  have  written  his  first  or  larger  Apology, 
addressed  to  the  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius,  to  his  adopted  sons, 
Marcus  Antoninus  the  philosopher,  and  Lucius  Verus  also 
called  philosopher,  and  to  the  senate  and  people  of  Rome,  about 
the  year  138  or  139. §  It  was  occasioned  by  the  suffering  of 
the  Christians  under  a  severe  persecution,  instigated  in  this 

*  Dial,  cc.  1,  8,  Otto.  t  Cohort,  ad  Grcecos,  cc.  13,  37,  Otto. 

J  Hist.,  iv.  11. 

§  This  date  is  adopted  by  Dodwell,  Petau.  Le  Clerc,  Basnage,  Scaliger, 
Pagi,  Mohler,  Semisch,  Neander,  Otto,  and  others  ;  thougli  some  prefer  A.  r>. 
•40  as  the  period  of  its  composition,  and  others  of  no  small  critical  repute  — 
as  Tiilemont,  Grabe,  Fleury,  and  Maran  —  name  as  late  a  date  as  150. 


28  JUSTIN    MARTYR. 

instance,  it  seems,  by  the  frenzy  of  the  populace,  who  were 
accustomed  at  the  pubhc  games,  and  whenever  opportunity 
offered,  to  clamor  for  their  blood,  and  urge  the  civil  authorities 
to  put  in  execution  the  imperial  edicts  then  existing  against 
them,  but  which  the  humanity  of  the  magistrates  appears  some- 
times to  have  allowed  to  sleep.  This  Apology  is  alluded  to  in 
the  Dialogue  with  Trypho :  which  must,  therefore,  have  been 
written  at  a  subsequent  period ;  Pearson  thinks,  in  the  year 
146 ;  *  but  this  is  conjecture.  The  second  Apology  appears 
to  have  been  written  at  a  still  later  period,  and  not  long  before 
his  martyrdom. f 

Justin  was  roused  to  offer  this  Apology  by  the  sufferings  of 
three  persons  who  had  been  recently  put  to  death  by  Urbicus, 
prefect  of  the  city,  for  no  crime,  but  only  for  acknowledging 
themselves  the  followers  of  Christ.  This  act  of  Urbicus  he 
regarded  only  as  a  prelude  to  still  further  severities ;  and,  with 
the  exalted  courage  of  a  martyr,  he  stepped  forward,  and  en- 
deavored to  avert  the  storm  which  seemed  ready  to  burst  on 
the  heads  of  his  fellow-Christians.  The  consequences  of  his 
zeal  and  activity  he  seems  fully  to  have  anticipated.  His 
ability,  the  weight  of  his  character,  his  powerful  appeals  and 
remonstrances,  and  his  unsparing  censure  of  the  follies  of  Pa- 
ganism, provoked  the  hostility  of  the  enemies  of  the  Christian 
name ;  and  they  now,  more  than  ever,  panted  for  the  blood  of 
so  noble  a  victim.  Near  the  beginning  of  his  Apology,  he 
expresses  his  belief  that  the  fate  of  his  companions  would  soon 
be  his  own.  He  had  a  determined,  and,  as  the  event  proved, 
a  powerful  adversary  in  one  Crescens,  a  Cynic  philosopher, 
whom  he  describes  as  a  person  of  infamous  character,  but  fond 
of  popularity,  and  willing  to  resort  to  any  arts,  however  base, 

*  Just.,  ed.  Thirlb.,  p.  439. 

t  It  was  addressed,  according  to  Eusebius  (iv.  16),  to  Marcus  Antoninus  the 
philosopher,  and  liis  associate  in  the  empire  ;  though  some  modern  critics  —  as 
Dodwell,  Thirlby  (Just.,  ed.  Thirlb.,  p.  110),  and  Pearson  — have  inferred,  from 
internal  evidence,  that  this  as  well  as  the  former  was  offered  to  Antoninus 
°iu8.  So  also  Neander ;  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  and,  we  may  add,  also 
of  Jerome,  notwithstanding.  Semisch  does  not  attempt  to  settle  the  date 
with  precision,  but  places  it  between  A.  d.  161  and  1G6.  Otto  names  164.  The 
theory  that  tliis  originally  constituted  only  the  introduction  to  the  larger 
Apology,  and  that  tlie  other  Apology  has  been  lost,  has  been  proved,  we 
^ink,  by  Otto  and  others,  to  be  entitled  to  no  respect. 


HIS   MARTYRDOM.  29 

for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  it.  The  odium  shared  by  the 
Christians,  already  virulent  enough,  appears  to  have  been  ren- 
dered still  more  deadly  by  his  exertions.  He  went  about  to 
inflame  the  minds  of  the  people  against  them ;  shamelessly 
reiterating  the  then  stale  charge  of  immorality  and  atheism, 
though,  as  Justin  affirms,  entirely  ignorant  of  their  principles. 
He  appears,  however,  to  have  obtained  the  ear  of  the  emperor ; 
for  his  machinations  succeeded,  and  Justin  was  sacrificed. 
He  was  apprehended ;  brought  before  Rusticus,  prefect  of  the 
city ;  and,  on  his  refusal  to  oflTer  sacrifice,  was  condemned  to  die. 

Of  his  death  by  martyrdom  there  can,  we  think,  be  no 
reasonable  doubt.  The  little  treatise,  already  mentioned,  called 
the  "Acts  of  the  Mai-tyrdom  of  Justin  and  Others,"  would 
furnish  an  affecting  account  of  the  concluding  scene  of  his  life, 
could  its  authenticity  be  established.  But  this  is  considered 
as  more  than  questionable.  The  piece  is  one  of  acknowledged 
antiquity ;  but  the  date  of  its  composition  cannot  be  ascer- 
tained :  nor  have  we  any  means  of  determining  whether  the 
Justin  whose  sufferings  it  recounts  is  the  saint  of  whom  we  are 
speaking,  or  another  individual  of  the  same  name.  In  these 
Acts,  he  is  said  to  have  been  beheaded ;  and  we  can  easily 
credit  them,  when  they  assert  that  he  met  death  with  the 
calmness  and  fortitude  becoming  a  follower  of  the  crucified 
Jesus.  The  precise  year  of  his  death  is  unknown.*  There  is 
a  tradition  in  the  Greek  Church,  that,  hke  Socrates,  he  drank 
the  hemlock ;  but  this  tradition  has  been  considered  as  entitled 
to  little  respect. 

Some  writers  of  the  Romish  communion  would  persuade  us 
that  he  was  admitted  to  the  order  of  priest  or  bishop  hi  that 
church  ;   but,  in  support  of  this  hypothesis,  they  offer  only 

*  Fabricius  (Biblioth.  Grcec,  t.  v.  p.  52)  and  Grabe  {Spic.  Patr.,  t.  ii.  pp.  146, 
147)  place  it  at  a.  d.  163,  —  or  perhaps  165,  says  the  latter;  Tilleraont  (Eccles. 
Mem.,  vol.  ii.  p.  145),  at  167  or  168 ;  others,  at  one  of  the  intervening  years 
165  or  166.  Dodwell  has  expressed  an  opinion  that  he  was  born  a.  d.  119, 
and  suffered  death  a.  d.  149,  at  thirty  years  of  age  (Dissert,  in.  in  Irenoeum, 
§  Id)  ;  but  this  opinion  is  not  supported  by  any  good  authority.  Epiphanius, 
indeed,  says  that  Justin  perished  during  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  at  thirty  years 
of  age.  But  it  is  beyond  question,  as  has  been  generally  observed,  either  that 
Epiphanius  was  deceived,  or  that  his  text  has  been  corrupted  ;  it  being  quite 
certain  that  Justin  survived  Hadrian.  Otto  adopts  the  date  of  a.  d.  166.  in 
the  consulship  of  Orphitus  and  Pudens. 


80  JUSTIN    MAETYR. 

vague  conjectures.  The  ancients  observe  the  most  profound 
silence  on  the  subject ;  nor  do  the  Romanists  of  modern  times 
venture  to  assign  him  any  particular  church  or  see.  Neander 
calls  him  an  "  itinerant  preacher,  in  the  garb  of  a  philosopher  ;  " 
and  Semisch,  an  "  itinerant  evangelist."  The  Romish  Church 
observes  his  festival  on  the  13th  of  April ;  and  the  Greek,  on 
the  1st  of  June ;  both  having  canonized  him. 


Justin's  weitings.  81 


CHAPTER  II. 

Justin's  Writings. — Extravagant  Praise  bestowed  on  him.  —  Rev- 

ERENCK     FOR     THE      FATHERS      DECLINES.  —  EXAMINATION      OF     JuSTIN'S 

larger  Apology.  —  His  Mode  of  Argument.  —  Topics  and  Tone 
OF  HIS  Address.  —  Prophecy  and  Miracles.  —  Topics  of  his  Second 
Apology.  —  Dialogue  with  Trypho. 

Several  of  the  works  of  Justin  are  lost;  among  which, 
unfortunately,  is  his  book  "  Against  all  Heresies,"  mentioned 
by  himself;  and  one  against  Marcion,  if  both  were  not  parts 
of  the  same  work.  His  first  Apology,  placed  second  in  the 
earlier  editions  of  his  works,  has  reached  us  nearly,  if  not 
quite,  entire.  The  second  is  somewhat  mutilated  at  the 
beginning,  and,  in  other  respects,  appears  imperfect.  The 
genuineness  of  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho  has  been  questioned 
by  a  few ;  but,  we  think,  for  very  insufficient  reasons.  The 
"  Hortatory  Address  to  the  Greeks "  has  been  rejected  by 
several  modern  critics  ;  *  and  Thirlby  has  not  admitted  it  into 
his  edition  of  the  works  of  the  saint.  Of  the  several  other 
treatises  formerly  published  under  his  name,  and  included  in 
the  later  editions  of  his  works,  with  the  exception  of  Thirlby's, 
none  are  now  considered  as  entitled  to  a  place  among  his  gen- 
uine and  acknowledged  remains.  Most  of  them  are  universally 
rejected  as  spurious  ;  f  and  the  two  or  three  short  pieces  or 

*  Its  genuineness  was  attacked  by  Casimir  Oudin,  a  writer  of  some  little 
note  in  his  time,  who  died  at  Leyden  in  1717.  Others  have  doubted  or  re- 
jected. Mohler  (Pa/;o/o(7/e,  p.  224)  is  among  the  latter.  Neander  hesitates. 
Otto  [De  Justini  Martyris  Scriptis  et  Doclrina,  p.  88,  etc.)  and  Semisch  (vol.  i. 
pp.  118,  etc)  argue  the  question,  the  latter  at  great  length,  and  decide  for  its 
genuineness.  Augusti,  De  Wette,  Credner,  Baumgarten-Crusius,  and  several 
others,  are  referred  to  as  pronouncing  the  same  judgment.  So  far  as  the  au- 
thority of  eminent  critics  goes,  the  evidence  on  this  side  now  decidedly  pre- 
dominates ;  tliough  much  doubt  remains,  and  ever  will  remain. 

t  These  are  the  Epistle  to  Zenas  and  Serenus,  the  Exposition  of  the  Right 
Faith,  Questions  and  Responses  to  the  Orthodox,  Christian  Questions  to  the 
Greeks,  and  Greek  Questions  to  the  Christians,  and  the  Confutation  of  Certain 
Dogmas  of  Aristotle,  all  thrown  into  the  Appendix  in  the  Paris  edition  of  1742 
as  manifestly  supposititious. 


82  JUSTIN    MAETYR. 

fragments,  still  sometimes  referred  to  as  his,  are  of  too  doubt- 
ful a  character  to  authorize  us  to  cite  them  as  part  of  his  gen- 
uine works.* 

Justin  has  been  the  subject  of  much  extravagant  panegyric. 

*  Such  are  the  Oration  to  tlie  Greeks,  the  short  fragment  on  the  Monarchy 
of  God,  and  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  —  a  work  of  undoubted  antiquity,  of 
which  we  shall  speak  hereafter.  Semisch  claims  the  fragment  of  a  work  on 
the  Resurrection  as  Justin's ;  but  there  is  not  that  historical  and  critical  evi 
dence  in  its  favor  which  is  necessary  to  procure  its  general  reception.  Few, 
we  think,  at  the  present  day,  will  venture  to  quote  from  it  as  a  work  of 
Justin. 

The  first  printed  edition  of  the  collected  works  of  Justin,  in  Greek,  is  that 
of  R.  Stephens  in  1551.  This  edition  includes  nearly  the  whole  of  what  has 
been  attributed  to  Justin,  Stephens  having  published  the  spurious,  along  with 
the  genuine,  from  a  manuscript  belonging  to  the  Royal  Library.  The  Address 
to  the  Greeks  or  Gentiles,  and  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  however,  were  not 
embraced  in  it,  but  were  published  by  Henry  Stephens  in  1592  and  1595.  An 
edition  of  the  works  of  this  Father  was  published  by  Sylburgius,  at  Heidel- 
berg, in  1593.  This  edition  was  reprinted  at  Paris  in  1615,  and  again  in  1636. 
That  bearing  the  latter  date  was  highly  esteemed,  and  is  the  edition  generally 
intended  when  reference  is  made  to  the  Paris  edition  by  several  writers  dur- 
ing the  century  subsequent  to  its  publication. 

Tliirlby's  edition  of  the  two  Apologies,  and  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  was 
published  in  Loudon  in  1722.  This  edition  is  beautifully  printed,  and  con- 
tains some  valuable  notes,  generally  brief,  and  not  encumbered  with  useless 
learning.  On  points  involving  doctrinal  controversy,  however,  Thirlby  has 
studiously  avoided  entering  into  any  discussion. 

The  last  Paris  edition  is  that  of  Prud.  Maran,  or  Maranus,  a  Benedictine 
monk  of  the  congregation  of  St.  Maur,  1742.  This  edition  includes  all  the 
treatises,  as  well  spurious  as  genuine,  which  have  been  at  different  times  pub- 
lished under  the  name  of  Justin.  The  volume  contains  likewise  the  remains 
of  several  other  Greek  writers  of  the  second  century  ;  as  Tatian,  Justin's 
disciple,  Athcnagoras,  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  and  Hermias.  Maran  gave  a 
new  Latin  version  of  the  two  Apologies  and  the  Dialogue.  Of  portions  of 
the  writings  of  Justin  there  have  been  more  recent  editions;  but  his  entire 
works,  for  a  hundred  years  from  the  time  of  Maran,  found  no  new  editor. 

The  first  volume  of  Otto's  edition  appeared  at  Jena  in  1842,  —  exactly  a  cen- 
tury after  the  date  of  the  celebrated  Paris  edition  of  Maran.  The  remaining 
volumes  subsequently  appeared  ;  and  a  second  edition,  in  five  volumes,  was 
published  in  1847-1850.  This  is  an  octavo  edition,  and  embraces  all  the  works 
which  have  passed  under  the  name  of  Justin,  genuine  and  spurious.  It  is 
very  carefully  edited,  with  a  corrected  text,  critical  annotations  and  com- 
ments, original  and  selected,  and  presents  the  writings  of  Justin  in  a  more 
convenient  form  than  any  before  possessed.  No  one  who  has  access  to  this 
■jdition  will  hereafter  use  any  other. 

[This  edition  of  Justin  by  Otto  forms  a  part  of  his  Corpus  Apologetarum 
Chrislianorum  SoecuU  Secundi.  Of  this  collection,  three  volumes  have  since 
appeared,  containing  the  remains  of  Tatian  (1851),  Athenagoras  (1857),  and 
Theophilus  (1861),  all  admirably  edited.  —  Ed.] 


JUSTIN   EXTRAVAGANTLY  PRAISED.  33 

Profound  learning,  penetration,  wit,  judgment,  and  eloquence 
(almost  every  quality  which  goes  to  make  a  great  writer)  have 
been  ascribed  to  him  by  his  too  partial  admirers.  Antiquity 
is  loud  in  his  praise.  Tatian,  his  disciple,  calls  him  a  "  most 
wonderful "  man  ;  and  Methodius,  a  writer  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, tells  us  that  he  was  "  not  far  removed  from  the  Apostles 
either  in  time  or  virtue."  Photius,  too,  though  he  admits  that 
his  style  wants  attractions  for  the  vulgar,  extols  his  solidity  of 
matter,  and  vast  and  exuberant  knowledge.  Of  the  biograph- 
ical notices  of  him,  furnished  by  comparatively  modern  writers, 
—  as  Cave,  Tillemont,  and  others,  —  most  are  composed  less 
in  the  style  of  impartial  history  than  of  fond  eulogium. 

As  a  blind  reverence  for  antiquity,  however,  yielded  at 
length  to  a  spirit  of  independent  research  and  just  criticism, 
the  credit  of  the  Fathers,  and  of  Justin  among  the  rest,  rapidly 
sunk.  Daille  in  his  "  Treatise  on  the  Use  of  the  Fathers," 
Le  Clerc  in  his  various  writings,*  Barbeyrac,f  and  we  might 
add  a  multitude  of  others,  and,  above  all,  the  learned  and 
accui'ate  Brucker,  J  contributed  their  proportion  to  bring  about 
this  revolution  in  public  opinion,  and  settle  the  question  of 
their  merit  and  defects.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  justify  every 
expression  of  contempt  and  sweeping  censure,  much  less  the 
tone  of  heartless  levity  and  ridicule,  in  which  modern  writers 
have  occasionally  indulged  in  speaking  of  them.  The  subject 
is  too  grave  for  derision.  The  Fathers,  with  whatever  imper- 
fections and  weaknesses  they  are  chargeable  as  authors,  are 
certainly  entitled  to  our  respect  and  sympathy  as  men  and 
Christians.  They  performed  an  important  office  in  society. 
They  received  and  transmitted  the  religion  of  the  humble  and 
despised  Jesus ;  transmitted  it  (disfigured  and  corrupted,  to  be 
sure,  but  still  transmitted  it)  in  the  face,  too,  of  torture  and 
death.  They  helped  to  carry  forward  the  triumphs  of  the 
cross.  The  fortitude  in  sufferings  exhibited  as  well  by  the 
learned  advocates  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  whose  position 

*  See  his  Ars  Critica,  also  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  and  Bibliotheque  UniverselU 
st  Hislorique,  Choisie,  and  Ancie7ine  et  Moderns  ;  a  rich  storehouse  of  information, 
in  eighty  volumes,  into  which  Gibbon,  as  he  tells  us,  dipped  with  delight ; 
jind  in  which  the  curious  will  be  ever  sure  to  find  entertainment. 

t  Trait€  de  la  Morale  des  Peres. 

}  Historia  Critica  Pkilosophice. 

3 


34  JUSTIN    MAETYE. 

rendered  them  objects  of  special  mark,  as  by  the  crowd  of  more 
obscure  behevers,  was  matter  of  admiration  and  astonishment 
to  the  Pagan  world  ;  and  the  church  was  nurtured  by  their 
blood. 

Of  such  men  we  cannot  speak  with  levity,  or  cold,  illiberal 
sarcasm.  But,  though  we  venerate  them  as  men  who  dared 
and  suffered  nobly,  truth  compels  us  to  say,  that,  as  writers, 
we  cannot  think  them  entitled  to  any  profound  respect.  We 
think,  with  Jortin,  that  "  it  is  better  to  defer  too  little  than 
too  much  to  their  decisions."  We  do  not  except  even  Justin. 
His  writings  deserve  the  attention  of  the  curious,  as  furnishing 
examples  of  the  manner  in  which  Christianity  was  defended, 
and  the  objections  of  Pagans  and  Jews  met  and  refuted,  in 
the  primitive  ages.  They  are  valuable,  too,  in  other  respects. 
But,  however  they  may  be  calculated  to  increase  our  reverence 
for  the  moral  qualities,  the  sincerity,  the  zeal,  the  self-devotion 
and  courage,  of  their  author,  they  will  not  give  us  any  very 
exalted  opinion  of  his  penetration,  taste,  or  judgment.  Whoever 
reads  them  with  the  expectation  of  finding  in  them  specimens 
of  just  and  well-sustained  argument  and  eloquence,  —  whoever 
looks  for  discriminating  remark,  or  a  neat  and  graceful  style, 
perspicuity,  or  method,  —  will  rise  from  the  perusal  of  them 
with  a  feeling  of  sad  disappointment. 

Let  us  take  his  first  and  larger  Apology.  It  was  not  neces- 
sary that  its  author,  in  order  to  attain  his  object,  should  estab- 
lish the  truth  of  Christianity.  Christianity  might  be  true  or 
false  ;  its  founder  might  have  been  divinely  commissioned,  or 
he  might  have  been  an  impostor  or  enthusiast :  yet  the  suffer- 
ings inflicted  on  Christians  might  be  undeserved ;  the  charges 
alleged  against  them  might  be  false,  and  their  punishment, 
therefore,  an  act  of  gross  injustice  and  cruelty.  Neither  the 
public  tranquillity  nor  the  safety  of  the  throne,  neither  justice 
nor  policy,  might  require  that  the  rising  sect,  infected  by  the 
"  new  superstition,"  as  it  was  called,  should  be  crushed.  These 
w'^ere  topics  which  the  early  apologists,  one  might  think,  would 
particularly  urge,  and  urge  with  all  their  strength  of  reasoning 
and  eloquence. 

The  popular  charges  against  the  Christians  were  those  of 
profligacy  and  atheism.     The  latter  arose  from  their  neglect 


EXAMINATION    OP   HIS   WRITINGS.  35 

of  the  gods,  whose  images  filled  every  temple  and  grove,  and 
the  worship  of  whom  was  enjoined  by  tlie  Roman  laws.  For 
this  crime,  for  their  alleged  impiety  and  contempt  of  the  gods, 
they  were  punished.  Pliny,  in  his  well-known  letter  to  Tra- 
jan, expresses  his  concern  that  the  contagion  of  the  new  opin- 
ions had  not  only  infected  cities,  but  spread  through  the  remoter 
towns  and  villages ;  that,  in  consequence,  the  temples  were 
deserted,  the  public  rites  of  religion  neglected,  and  the  victims 
remained  unsold.  The  old  fabric  of  superstition  seemed  tot- 
tering, and  ready  to  fall.  But  this  fabric  it  was  deemed  mat- 
ter of  policy  to  support ;  and  whatever  tended  to  weaken  and 
overthrow  it,  was,  therefore,  regarded  with  extreme  jealousy 
and  aversion.  Hence  the  virulence  manifested  against  the 
growing  sect  of  Christians.  They  were  the  enemies  of  legalized 
superstitions  ;  and  were  therefore  viewed  as  in  some  sense  dis- 
turbers of  the  public  peace,  and  dangerous  to  the  State.  The 
calamities  which  afflicted  the  empire  increased  the  hatred 
against  them.  Of  these  calamities  they  were  accused  of  being 
the  authors ;  and  by  their  blood  alone,  it  was  urged  by  a  super- 
stitious populace,  they  could  be  averted,  and  the  anger  of 
Heaven  appeased.  If  the  Tiber  overflowed  its  banks,  or  the 
Nile  did  not  rise,  or  there  was  earthquake  or  famine  or  pesti- 
lence, the  Christians  must  pay  the  penalty  by  their  lives. 
"  Away  with  the  Atheists  !  "  was  the  cry  :  "  The  Chi'istians  to 
the  lions !  "  Such  were  the  feelings  and  opinions,  and  such 
the  mode  of  reasoning,  which  Justin  found  it  necessary  to 
combat :  and  several  of  the  views  and  considerations  he  sug- 
gests have  great  weight ;  though,  from  his  want  of  skill  in 
argument,  he  fails  of  making  the  most  of  them. 

He  demands  only,  he  says,  that  Christians  be  placed  on  a 
footing  with  other  subjects  of  the  empire  ;  that  the  charges 
brought  against  them  should  be  examined ;  and,  if  they  were 
found  guilty,  he  wishes  not,  he  says,  to  screen  them  from  pun- 
ishment. But  let  them  not  be  put  to  death  without  an 
opportunity  of  establishing  their  innocence ;  let  them  not  be 
condemned  simply  for  bearing  the  name  of  Christians.  Names 
are  indifferent :  the  things  signified  by  them  are  alone  of  im- 
portance. If  Christians  are  what  they  are  represented  to  be 
(workers  of  all  iniquity,  not  only  holding  opinions  in  the  last 


86  JUSTIN   MARTYR. 

degree  impious  and  detestable,  but  sanctioning  every  enormity 
by  their  practice),  let  it  be  proved  against  them.  Show  them 
to  be  malefactors,  and  we  will  not  complain  that  they  are 
punished  as  such.  But,  if  their  lives  are  blameless,  it  is  mani- 
fest injustice  to  sacrifice  them  to  popular  frenzy  and  hatred. 

Thus  far,  Justin  proceeds  on  unquestionable  ground.  He 
asserts  the  great  principles  of  justice  and  equity ;  he  contends 
for  liberty  of  opinion ;  he  is  a  strenuous  asserter  of  that  liberty : 
and  happy  for  the  repose  of  Christendom,  had  Christians  never 
lost  sight  of  the  sentiments  in  the  pi-esent  instance  uttered  by 
this  early  Father.  They  were  worthy  the  noble  cause  he  was 
advocating,  and  might  with  advantage  have  been  further 
pressed  ;  for  this  was  Justin's  stronghold.  While  urging  these 
considerations,  he  was  pleading  the  cause  of  common  justice 
and  humanity ;  and  his  sentiments  must  have  found  an  echo 
in  every  breast  which  retained  the  least  portion  of  sensibility 
or  correct  feeling.  But  he  injudiciously  breaks  off  a  truly  val- 
uable train  of  thought,  the  moment  he  has  entered  upon  it,  to 
introduce  some  observations  about  demons,  to  whose  active 
malice  he  attributes  the  odium  under  which  Christians  lay. 
As  regards  these  evil  demons,  he  says,  we  confess  we  may  be 
denominated  Atheists ;  for  we  reject  their  worship :  but  not  as 
regards  the  true  God  and  his  Son  sent  by  him,  the  host  of  good 
angels  and  the  prophetic  spirit ;  for  these  we  reverence  and 
adore.  He  then  speaks  of  the  objects  of  Heathen  adoration, 
and  the  folly  of  honoring  them  with  victims  and  garlands  ;  and 
observes  that  God  wants  not  material  offerings.  Christians, 
he  continues,  look  not  for  an  earthly  kingdom ;  and,  as  their 
hopes  are  not  fixed  on  present  things,  death  by  the  hands  of 
the  executioner  has  no  terrors  for  them  :  "  You  may  slay,  but 
you  cannot  hurt."  They  are  good  subjects,  and  promoters  of 
virtue  and  peace  ;  for  they  teach  that  all  men,  whatever  their 
characters,  are  subject  to  God's  inspection,  and  will  be  here- 
after rewarded  or  punished  as  their  actions  merit.  He  then 
cautions  those  whom  he  was  addressing  against  listening  to 
calumnies  which  originated  with  deceptive  demons.  These 
demons  were  enemies  of  the  Christians ;  since  the  latter,  in 
embracing  Christ,  renounced  their  dominion,  and  became  re- 
formed in  temper  and  Ufe.     To  prove  that  he  is  not  playing 


MODE   OF   ARGUMENT.  37 

the  sophist  in  thus  speaking,  he  says  that  he  will  quote  a  few- 
precepts  of  Christ ;  and  he  proceeds  to  give  copious  extracts 
from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  other  parts  of  the 
Saviour's  teachings  of  a  strictly  practical  character,  not  omit- 
ting tlie  rendering  "  to  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Csesar's,  and 
to  God  the  things  that  are  God's."  He  thus  shows  that  Chris- 
tianity inculcates  purity  of  heart,  charity,  patience,  forbids 
rash  oaths,  enjoins  obedience  to  magistrates ;  that  it  teaches 
the  doctrine  of  immortality,  and  retribution  for  the  just  and 
unjust  acts  of  the  present  life. 

As  to  what  is  said  of  Christ's  birth,  death,  and  ascension,  it 
cannot,  he  thinks,  sound  strange  to  a  heathen  ear  accustomed 
to  the  fabulous  narratives  of  the  poets  ;  for  similar  things  are 
related  of  the  sons  of  Jove. 

Such  is  the  train  of  Justin's  remarks,  so  far  as  they  liave  any 
consecutiveness,  through  one  third,  and  that  by  far  the  least 
exceptionable  part,  of  his  Apology.  What  remains  consists 
of  observations  and  theories  on  the  subject  of  the  incarnation  ; 
expositions  of  prophecies,  generally  extravagant  and  fanciful 
enough ;  accounts  of  the  miraculous  feats,  the  craft  and  malice, 
of  demons,  who  appear  perpetuall}^  to  haunt  his  imagination, 
and  whom  he  considers  the  authors  of  the  Heathen  mythology, 
and  inspirers  of  the  poets;  the  abetters  of  heresy,  and  insti- 
gators of  all  the  calamities  under  which  Christians  were  groan- 
ing. After  adding  a  description  of  the  sacred  rites  of  Chris- 
tians, —  Baptism  and  the  Supper,  —  and  their  worship,  or  mode 
of  passing  Sunday,  he  concludes  with  beseeching  the  clemency 
of  the  emperor,  and  calls  his  attention  to  a  rescript  of  Hadrian 
in  favor  of  the  Christians,  which  he  subjoins. 

Such  are  the  general  topics  introduced  into  the  first  Apology. 
It  contains  some  truth,  and  some  just  views  and  representa- 
tions ;  enough  surely  to  show  that  the  Christians  were  the  vic- 
tims of  great  injustice  and  cruelty,  but  nothing  which  bears 
any  resemblance  to  regular  and  well-sustained  argument.  A 
large  portion  of  the  thoughts,  or  rather  crude  and  incoherent 
conceptions  and  comments  and  strange  conceits,  obtruded  upon 
the  notice  of  the  emperor,  are  such  as  could  have  no  weight 
with  him,  and  produce  no  effect  but  to  inspire  contempt  for 
the  author's  understanding.     He  injures  his  cause  by  weak  and 


38  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

inconclusive  arguments,  and  by  the  immense  mass  of  irrelevant 
and  trifling  or  absurd  matter  with  which  he  encumbers  the 
defence. 

With  regard  to  the  tone  of  his  address,  we  may  observe, 
that  it  was  anything  but  mild  and  conciliating.  Justiif  seems 
to  have  possessed  a  harsh  and  overbearing  temper,  which  he 
had  not  the  prudence  to  keep  under  restraint  when  motives  of 
interest  and  common  decorum  alike  required  it.  On  this  sub- 
ject, Thirlby,  who  was  sufficiently  indulgent  in  his  judgment 
of  the  Fathers,  expresses  himself  with  much  point  and  truth. 
After  observing  in  substance,  that,  though  not  a  writer  of  the 
first  merit,  he  is  lively  and  pungent,  and  though  not  suited 
to  the  fastidious  taste  of  an  effeminate  age,  yet,  for  the  times 
in  which  he  lived,  he  had  no  ordinary  degree  of  leai'ning  and 
eloquence,  he  adds,  "  These  excellences  were  shaded  by  two 
faults :  he  is  beyond  measure  rash  and  careless,  and  wrote  in 
a  style  angry,  contentious,  and  vituperative  ;  utterly  wanting 
in  respect  for  the  emperor,  and  urbanity  to  others."  *  He  is 
destitute  of  complaisance  alike  to  the  fugitive  Jews,  and  to  the 
Romans,  the  masters  of  the  world.  His  language  certainly 
cannot  be  referred  to  as  illustrating  the  Christian  precepts  of 
gentleness  and  forbearance,  meekness  and  charity. 

We  have  said  that  it  was  not  necessary  that  Justin,  in  order 
to  show  the  injustice  of  the  persecutions  under  which  Christians 
suffered,  should  establish  the  absolute  truth  of  Christianity  in 
opposition  to  Heathenism.  It  was  enough  that  he  should  prove 
that  the  followers  of  Jesus  led  innocent,  pure,  and  useful  lives  ; 
that  they  were  the  friends  of  peace,  obedient  to  the  laws,  and 
in  no  way  enemies  to  the  State.  Still  it  could  hardly  be  that 
those  who  undertook  the  defence  of  their  fellow-Christians 
should  leave  out  of  sight  the  reasons  which  operated  in  pro- 
ducing that  change  from  Heathenism  to  Christianity  which 
was  the  source  of  all  their  calamities  and  sufferings.  They 
would  be  naturally  led  to  speak  of  the  follies  of  Pagan  super- 
stitions, and  to  urge  the  higher  claims  of  Christianity.  This 
they  did  successfully  ;  for  the  superior  excellence  of  Christianity 
was  such  as  to  appear  on  the  slightest  comparison  of  it  with 
Heathen  systems. 

*  Dedication  prefixed  to  his  edition  of  Justin. 


HIS   TREATMENT   OF  MIRACLES.  39 

But  we  must  not  look  to  the  early  Apologists  for  systematic 
and  masterly  defences  of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity. 
In  this  particular,  Justin  is  deficient.  On  the  argument  from 
prophecy  he  dwells  at  length,  but  not  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
satisfy  a  reader  of  the  present  day.  Of  the  evidence  from 
miracles  he  scarcely  takes  any  notice.  Perhaps  the  cause 
may  be  traced  to  the  popular  belief  of  the  age.  The  efficacy 
of  incantations  and  magic  formed  part  of  this  belief,  common 
alike  to  Christians  and  Pagans.  Miracles  were  regarded  as 
of  no  rare  occurrence,  and  they  were  supposed  to  be  wrought 
by  magical  arts.  Christianity  might,  then,  have  the  support  of 
miracles ;  but  this  support  would  be  regarded  as  of  trifling 
importance  by  those  who  were  believers  in  the  reality  of 
charms  and  sorcery.  The  miracle  might  be  admitted ;  but  the 
evidence  derived  from  it  could  be  invalidated  by  ascribing  it 
to  the  effects  of  magic.  That  the  early  Fathers  and  Apolo- 
gists really  felt  a  difficulty  of  this  kind,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
The  Jews  had  set  the  example  by  attributing  the  miracles  of 
our  Saviour  to  a  demoniacal  agency.  That  the  Heathens  trod 
in  their  steps,  by  ascribing  them  to  magical  influences,  we 
gather  from  a  hint  Justin  himself  has  incidentally  dropped ; 
and  Origen  expressly  affirms  it  as  regards  Celsus.  Here, 
then,  was  a  grand  objection  to  the  evidence  from  miracles,  and 
one  which  the  Fathers,  who  were  themselves  firm  believers  in 
the  powers  of  magic  and  demoniacal  influences,  must  have 
found  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  remove.  So  Tertullian,  refer- 
ring to  Matthew  xxiv.  24,  expresses  distrust  of  the  evidence 
of  miracles  when  not  accompanied  with  that  of  prophecy. 
This  feeling  seems  to  have  very  generally  prevailed  among  the 
old  Fathers.* 

The  topics  of  the  second  Apology  —  which,  as  we  possess  it, 
is  brief —  are  similar  to  those  of  the  first,  and  are  treated  with 

*  Origen  clearly  places  the  evidence  from  prophecy  above  that  of  miracles ; 
(ind  moral  miracles,  such,  for  example,  as  opening  the  eyes  of  the  spiritually 
Mind,  he  pronounces  greater  than  physical.  Nor  was  the  testimony  of  the 
soul  itself  wholly  discarded.  Origen  seems  to  prize  as  the  highest  of  all,  that 
faith  which  is  founded  on  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  that  is,  on 
the  intuitions  of  the  soul  itself;  and  Tertullian  {ApoL,  c.  17)  once  speaks  of 
the  soul  as  "naturally  Christian."  See  Hagenbach,  Text-Book,  etc.,  First 
Per.,  §§  28  and  29. 


40  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

no  more  judgment.  It  breathes  a  martyr-spirit,  but  contains 
the  same  blending  of  just  thought  with  trifling  remark  and 
weak  reasoning,  which  we  have  noticed  as  characteristic  of 
the  first ;  and  its  tone  is  not  more  concihatory.  The  fierce 
denunciation  of  the  rehgion  of  the  empire,  and  the  charge 
brought  against  the  emperors,  and  urged  in  no  measured 
language,  that  they  were  instruments  in  the  hands  of  wicked 
demons,  would  serve  only  to  irritate,  and  put  the  oppressed 
Christians  on  a  worse  rather  than  a  better  footing  with  the 
State.     It  was  certainly  impolitic. 

The  Dialogue  with  Trypho  exhibits  in  still  greater  promi- 
nence Justin's  defects  of  conception  and  style :  his  loose 
reasoning;  his  rambling,  incoherent  course  of  remark;  his 
tautology ;  his  false  rhetoric,  and  utter  contempt  of  all  the 
laws  of  good  writing.  Our  readers  will  readily  pardon  us, 
we  think,  for  not  attempting  an  analysis  of  the  work. 


INTELLECTUAL   DEFECTS.  41 


CHAPTER  III. 

General  Defects  of  Justin's  Intellectual  and  Literary  Charac- 
ter.—  His  Love  of  the  Marvellous.  —  His  Account  of  the  Origin 
OF  jJemons.  —  Feats  performed  by  them.  —  His  Chronological  Er- 
rors.—  His  Carelessness  in  Quotation.  —  An  Allegorist.  —  Speci- 
mens of  his  Fanciful  Interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament.  — 
Types  of  the  Cross.  —  His  Learning.  —  Eminently  Uncritical. 

The  general  defects  of  Justin's  intellectual  and  literary 
character  appear  from  what  has  been  already  said.  Our  read- 
ers, however,  may  be  pleased  with  some  instances  and  specifi- 
cations ;  and  as  they  will  illustrate  his  opinions,  and  the  opin- 
ions and  modes  of  thinking  of  Christians  of  his  day,  we  will 
proceed  to  give  them ;  simply  remarking,  before  we  enter  on 
our  task,  that,  if  it  appears  incredible  that  a  writer  of  the 
second  century,  well  educated,  taught  in  the  schools  of  philos- 
ophy, a  man  of  great  repute  in  the  Church,  and  an  eminent 
apologist  for  Christianity,  could  so  think  and  write,  the  char- 
acter of  the  times  must  be  taken  into  view.  In  him,  as  it  has 
been  said,  "  we  perceive'  the  influence  of  the  spirit  of  the  age. 
The  excellences  and  defects  of  his  times,  and  of  Christian 
antiquity,  are  visibly  blended  in  his  person  " ;  the  defects  in 
rather  undue  proportion,  we  think,  so  far  as  the  intellect  is 
concerned.  Nor  is  it  enough  to  say  in  explanation,  as  it  has 
been  said,  that  the  better-educated  converts  "  designedly  di- 
vested their  writings  of  all  ornament  and  splendor  of  diction, 
from  a  mistaken  regard  to  Christian  truth."  Possibly  some 
did  so ;  unfortunately,  we  think,  if  they  did.  Still  it  is  true, 
as  Irenseus  confesses  of  himself,  and  Lactantius  of  others, 
that  the  early  Christian  writers  were  generally  rude  of  speech  ; 
and  their  want  of  intellectual  culture,  and  their  errors  of  taste 
and  reasoning,  were  obvious,  —  were  real,  and  not  affected. 
They  wrote  as  well  as  they  knew  how.  Let  Justin  have  the 
benefit  of  all  the  indulgence  to  which  he  is  entitled  from  the 
delinquencies  of  the  times.  With  this  observation,  we  proceed 
with  our  specimens. 


42  JUSTIN    MARTYR. 

Of  Justin's  inattention  to  dates  we  have  a  well-known  and 
striking  example  in  the  account  he  gives  of  the  origin  of  the 
Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament ;  in  which,  as  it 
stands  in  his  first  Apology,*  he  makes  Ptolemy  Philadelphus, 
King  of  Egypt,  contemporary  with  Herod  the  Great,  King  of 
Judaea;  thus  committing  a  chronological  error  of  about  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years.  If  the  "  Hortatory  Address  to  the 
Greeks  "  be  his,  the  story  furnishes  a  remarkable  instance  of 
his  credulity  and  love  of  the  marvellous,  as  well  as  of  his 
haste  and  negligence :  for  he  there  relates,  that  the  seventy 
who  were  sent  from  Judsea,  at  the  request  of  Ptolemy,  to  trans- 
late the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  —  of  which  he  had  previously 
obtained  a  copy,  —  were,  by  his  command,  shut  up  in  as 
many  separate  cells  on  the  island  called  Pharos,  and  pro- 
hibited all  intercourse  one  with  another  till  each  should  have 
finished  a  translation  of  the  whole ;  and  that  their  several 
translations  were  then  found,  upon  comparison,  to  agree  to  a 
letter ;  which  was  regarded  by  the  astonished  king  as  evidence 
that  they  had  received  divine  assistance.  This,  the  writer 
adds,  is  no  fable ;  for,  on  visiting  Alexandria,  he  was  shown 
the  remains  of  the  very  cells  in  which  the  task  was  performed. f 
He  received  the  story,  he  says,  ft-om  the  inhabitants  of  the 
place,  who  had  the  tradition  from  their  fathers ;  and  writers, 
—  wise  men,  and  men  of  repute,  —  Philo,  Josephus,  and  many 
others,  give  the  same  account.  Of  the  truth  of  the  narrative 
he  entertained  no  shadow  of  doubt,  any  more  than  of  the 
story,  that,  during  the  forty  years'  sojourn  of  the  Israelites  in 
the  wilderness,  not  only  did  not  the  thongs  on  their  sandals 

*  P.  62;  Otto,  c.  31.     See  also  Cohort.,  c.  13. 

t  Pp.  16,  17.  The  inspiration  of  the  Septuagint  version  appears  to  have 
been  the  common  belief  of  the  Fathers  before  the  time  of  Jerome ;  and  this 
fact  Le  Clerc  adduces  as  evidence  of  their  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew.  "  Si 
.68  Peres,"  he  observes,  "  Grecs  et  les  Latins,  qui  ont  vecu  avant  S.  Jerome, 
avoient  entendu  I'Hebreu,  ils  n'auroient  jamais  cru  que  les  LXX.  interpretes 
avoient  ete  inspirez;  puis  qu'ils  auroient  trouve  mille  fautes  dans  leur  version, 
pour  avoir  suivi  des  cxemplaires  fautifs,  ou  n'avoir  pas  su  lire  le  leur,  ou 
n'avoir  pas  bien  entendu  la  langue  Hebraique,  ou  n'y  avoir  pas  apporte  assez 
d'attention,  ou  enfin  pour  avoir  traduit  licentieusement.  II  est  vrai  que  Philon 
et  Joseph  ont  dit  la  meme  chose  de  I'inspiration  des  Septante ;  mais  le  premier 
ne  savoit  point  d'llebreu,  et  le  second  semble  avoir  manage,  en  cela,  les  Juifs 
Hellenistes."  —  Biblioth.  Anc.  et  Mod.,  torn.  vi.  p.  329. 


HIS   ACCOUNT   OP   DEMONS.  43 

become  broken,  or  their  shoes  torn,  or  their  garments  grow 
old  upon  them,  but  the  clothes  of  the  younger  Hebrews  actu- 
ally increased  in  size  as  they  grew  up !  * 

What  he  says  of  demons,  in  different  parts  of  his  writings, 
shows  how  easily  he  could  be  led,  on  occasion,  to  credit  the 
wildest  and  most  monstrous  fictions.  God,  he  very  gravelv 
tells  us,  having  formed  man,  committed  him,  together  with  all 
sublunary  things,  to  the  care  of  angels,  whose  too  susceptible 
natures  caused  them  to  trespass  with  the  frail  daughters  of 
earth  ;  f  and  hence  sprang  the  race  of  demons.  These  demons 
did  not  long  remain  idle.  They  mixed  in  all  human  affairs, 
and  soon  obtained  universal  sway  in  the  world.  They  deceived 
men  by  arts  of  magic,  frightened  them  with  apparitions,  caused 
them  to  see  visions  and  dream  dreams,  perpetrated  crimes,  and 
performed  numerous  feats  and  prodigies,  which  the  fabulous 
poets  of  antiquity,  in  their  ignorance,  transferred  to  the  gods. 
They  presided  over  the  splendid  mythology  of  the  Heathen, 
instituted  sacrifices,  and  regaled  themselves  with  the  blood  of 
victims,  of  which  they  began  to  be  in  want  after  they  became 
subject  to  passions  and  lusts.  J  They  were  the  authors  of  all 
heresies,  fraud,  and  mischief.  Their  malice  was  chiefly  di- 
rected against  the  Saviour ;  whose  success,  they  well  knew, 
would  be  attended  with  their  overthrow :  and  therefore,  long 
before  his  appearance  on  earth,  they  tasked  their  ingenuity  to 
defeat  the  purpose  of  his  mission.  They  invented  tales  about 
the  gods  of  the  nations,  corresponding  to  the  descriptions  of 
him  given  by  the  Hebrew  prophets ;  hoping  so  to  fill  the 
minds  of  men  with  "  lying  vanities,"  that  the  writings  which 
predicted  his  advent  might  be  brought  into  discredit,  and  all 
that  related  to  him  pass  for  fable.  For  example,  when  they 
heard  the  prophecy  of  Moses, §  Gen.   xlix.  10,  11,  — "  The 

*  Dial,  e.  131,  Otto. 

t  This  notion,  founded  on  a  misconception  of  Gen.  vi.  4,  of  which  the  Sev- 
enty had  given  a  faulty  translation,  did  not  originate  with  Justin.  Philo  and 
Josephus  had  advanced  the  same  before  him  ;  and  succeeding  Fathers,  one 
after  another,  copied  it  without  examination.  "  Cela  fait  voir,"  says  Le  Clerc, 
"qu'il  ne  faut  pas  tant  vanter  le  consentement  des  Peres  en  matieres  de  theo- 
logie."  —  Bib.  Choisie,  torn.  ii.  p.  3.36. 

X  Apol.  I.,  p.  51 ;  II.,  p.  92.     Otto,  c.  14  and  c.  5. 

§  The  prophecy  belongs,  not  to  Moses,  but  to  Jacob. 


44  JUSTIN   MARTYR. 

sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah,  nor  a  lawgiver  fi'om  be- 
tween his  feet,  until  Shiloh  come  ;  and  he  shall  be  the  expec- 
tation of  the  nations,  binding  his  foal  to  the  vine,  and  washing 
his  garment  in  the  blood  of  the  grape,"  —  they  got  np,  as  a 
counterpart,  the  story  of  Bacchus,  the  son  of  Jupiter  and 
inventor  of  the  grape,  and  introduced  wine  into  the  celebra- 
tion of  his  mysteries,  and  represented  him  as  finally  ascending 
into  heaven.  They  were  exceedingly  sagacious,  but,  with  all 
their  astuteness,  found  some  difficulty  in  interpreting  parts  of 
the  above-mentioned  prediction  of  Jacob.  The  prophet  had  not 
expressly  said  whether  he  who  should  come  was  to  be  the  son  of 
God,  or  the  son  of  man  ;  nor  whethfer  he  was  to  make  use  of  the 
foal  spoken  of  while  he  remained  on  earth,  or  only  during  his 
ascent  into  heaven.  To  get  over  this  difficulty,  these  crafty 
demons,  in  addition  to  the  story  of  Bacchus,  trumped  up  that 
of  Bellerophon,  who  was  a  man  born  of  men  ;  and  who,  as 
they  tell  us,  mounted  on  his  Pegasus,  ascended  into  heaven. 
The  prediction  of  Isaiah  relating  to  the  virgin  (vii.  14),  they 
said,  was  fulfilled  in  Perseus ;  that  in  Ps.  xix.  5,  "  strong  as  a 
giant  to  run  a  race,"  (which  Justin  seems  to  have  applied  to 
the  Messiah,)  in  Hercules,  who  was  a  man  of  strength,  and 
travei^sed  the  whole  earth.  Again  :  when  they  found  it  pre- 
dicted that  he  should  cure  diseases  and  raise  the  dead,  they 
appealed  to  the  case  of  ^sculapius,  who  also  recalled  the  dead 
to  life,  and  was  taken  up  into  heaven.*  Nor  did  they  cease 
from  their  mischievous  industry  after  the  death  of  Christ.  As, 
before  this  event,  they  had  made  use  of  the  poets  as  agents 
in  disseminating  their  delusions,  so  after  it  they  raised  up 
heretics,  —  Marcion  on  the  banks  of  the  Euxine,  and  the  Sa- 
maritans Menander  and  Simon,  —  who  seduced  many  by  their 
magical  miracles ;  and  with  the  latter  of  whom  the  senate 
and  the  people  of  Rome,  he  tells  us,  became  so  infatuated  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Claudius  Caesar,  that  they  numbered  him 
with  the  gods,  and  honored  him  with  a  statue,  which  he  prays 
may  be  thrown  down.f  They  "hover  about  the  beds  of  the 
dying,  on  the  watch  to  receive  the  departing  soul."  The 
spirits  of  just   men,   and   prophets   equally   with    others,   he 

*  A-pol  I.,  pp.  75,  76 ;  Otto,  c.  21  and  c.  54.     Dial.,  c.  69. 
t  ApoL  I.,  pp.  77,  78;  Otto,  c.  56. 


HIS    WANT    OF    ACCURACY.  45 

assures  us,  fall  under  their  power ;  of  which  we  have  an  in- 
stance in  the  case  of  Samuel,  whose  soul  was  evoked  by  the 
witch  of  Endor.  Hence,  he  continues,  we  pray,  in  the  hour 
of  death,  that  we  may  be  preserved  from  the  power  of 
demons.* 

All  this,  if  we  except  the  last-mentioned  opinion  and  the 
story  of  the  garments  that  grew,  occurs,  with  much  more 
of  the  same  stamp,  in  the  two  Apologies,  and  furnishes  a 
fair  specimen  of  Justin's  participation  in  the  errors  of  the 
times. 

We  pass  over  his  belief  of  the  Jewish  "  dream  of  the  Mil- 
lennium," which  he  took  from  Papias,  a  very  weak  man,  and 
the  "  Father  of  Traditions,"  as  he  has  been  called  ;  and  his 
strange  proof-texts,  one  of  which  is,  "  The  day  of  the  Lord  is 
as  a  thousand  years"  ;  and  another,  "As  the  days  of  a  tree 
shall  be  the  days  of  my  people."  His  mistake  about  the  statue 
of  Simon  Magus  we  let  go  ;  as  also  his  credulity  in  placing  the 
Sibylline  books  on  a  level  with  the  writings  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets,  or  nearly  so,  attributing  to  them  a  real  inspiration, 
and  quoting  them  as  authority,  —  sad  proof  of  the  sort  of  evi- 
dence which  could  satisfy  him.  We  have  noticed  one  of  his 
chronological  errors.  It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  specimens. 
Thus  he  seems  to  place  Moses,  whom  he  calls  first  of  the 
prophets,  five  thousand  years  before  Christ ;  David,  fifteen 
hundred  ;  and  the  last  of  the  prophets,  eight  hundred  :  f  in  the 
two  latter  cases,  committing  an  error  in  chronology  of  about 
four  hundi'ed  years  ;  and,  in  the  first,  a  much  greater,  even 
supposing  that  the  prophecy  in  question  is  to  be  attributed  to 
Adam,  and  that  all  he  meant  to  say,  by  calling  Moses  the  first 
prophet,  is,  that  he  was  the  first  recorder  of  prophecy. 

His  want  of  accuracy  in  citing  from  the  Old  Testament  has 
often  and  justly  been  made  a  subject  of  complaint.  He  fre- 
quently misquotes,  ascribing  to  one  prophet  the  words  of 
another,  —  as  to  Isaiah  the  words  of  Jeremiah,  J  or  to  Jere- 
miah the  language  of  Daniel. §  When  a  passage  does  not 
exactly  suit  his  purpose,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  add  to  the 
3riginal  to  render  it  more  appropriate ;  an  instance  of  which 

*  Dial,  p.  200.  t  Apol.  I.,  pp.  62,  63,  68. 

}  Apol.  I.,  p.  75.  §  Ibid.,  p.  73. 


46  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

occurs  in  his  manner  of  citing  Ps.  xxiv.  7,  "  Lift  up  the  gates 
of  heaven,"  *  the  last  two  words  being  supphed  to  make  the 
passage  apphcable  to  Christ's  ascent  into  heaven,  which,  he 
says,  it  is  designed  to  predict. 

With  regard  to  his  quotations,  indeed,  the  most  indulgent 
critics  have  found  it  impossible  to  exculpate  him  from  the 
charge  of  the  utmost  carelessness.  His  want  of  exactness  is 
admitted  ;  and  the  best  excuse  which  has  been  offered  for  him 
is,  that  he  quotes  from  recollection,  and  that  his  errors  must 
therefore  be  attributed  to  a  treacherous  memory.  This  sup- 
position acquits  him  of  intentional  fraud  ;  but,  unfortunately, 
his  inaccuracies  are  often  of  such  a  character,  that  a  detection 
of  them  is  sufficient  to  overthrow  the  whole  train  of  reasoning 
founded  on  the  citations  in  which  they  occur. 

As  a  critic  and  interpreter,  it  is  not  saying  too  much  to 
affirm  that  he  is  of  no  authority.  He  is  exceedingly  deficient 
in  discrimination,  and  a  knowledge  of  the  laws  and  usages  of 
language.  He  gives  in  to  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpreta- 
tion adopted  by  Philo  and  his  school.  He  is  perpetually  beat- 
ing about  for  hidden  meanings,  and  far-fetched  and  mystical 
constructions,  and  typical  representations  and  fanciful  resem- 
blances. Thus  he  considers  the  tree  of  life  planted  in  Paradise 
a  symbol  of  Christ's  cross,  through  Avhich  he  achieved  his 
triumphs  ;  and  he  goes  on  to  descant  at  great  length  on  the 
symbolic  properties  of  wood.  Moses,  he  tells  us,  was  sent 
with  a  rod  to  deliver,  his  people  :  with  a  rod  he  divided  the 
sea,  and  brought  water  out  of  the  rock.  By  a  piece  of  wood 
the  waters  of  Marah  were  made  sweet.  With  a  rod,  or  staff, 
Jacob  passed  over  the  Jordan.  Aaron  obtained  his  priesthood 
by  the  budding  and  blossoming  of  his  rod  ;  Isaiah  predicted 
that  there  should  come  forth  a  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse  ; 
and  David  compares  the  just  to  a  tree  planted  by  the  waters. 
From  a  tree,  God  was  seen  by  Abraham  :  as  it  is  written, 
"  at  the  oak  of  Mamre."  By  a  rod  and  staff,  David,  says  he, 
received  consolati  m  of  God.  The  people,  having  crossed  the 
Jordan,  found  seventy  willows  ;  and,  by  casting  wood  into  it, 
Elisha  made  iron  to  swim.  In  a  similar  strain  he  proceeds  ;  f 
W'hich  furnishes  no  unapt  occasion  for  the  sarcastic  Middleton 
*  Apol.  I.,  p.  73.  t  Dial.,  pp.  183,  184 ;  Otto,  c.  86. 


TYPES   OF   THE   CllOiiS.  47 

to  say,  that  he  "  applies  all  the  sticks  and  pieces  of  wood  in 
the  Old  Testament  to  the  cross  of  Christ."  * 

The  virtue  of  the  cross,  the  emblem  of  Christ's  power  and 
majesty,  Justin  observes,  is  discovered  in  things  which  fall 
under  notice  of  the  senses  ;  for  consider,  says  he  in  his  first 
"Apology  to  the  Romans,"  whether  anything  can  be  trans- 
acted, of  all  that  is  done  in  the  world,  without  this  figure. 
The  sea  cannot  be  traversed  without  that  trophy  called  a  sail ; 
without  this  figure,  the  land  could  not  be  ploughed  ;  nor  could 
any  manual  arts  be  carried  on  without  instruments  having  th? 
form  of  the  cross.  And  the  human  figure,  he  remarks,  differs 
from  that  of  other  animals,  only  as  it  is  er<  ct  and  has  exten- 
sion of  hands,  and  a  nose  projecting  from  the  face,  answering 
the  purposes  of  respiration  ;  showing  no  other  than  the  figure 
of  the  cross.  The  prophet,  he  continues,  has  also  said,f  "  The 
breath  before  our  face,  Christ  the  Lord  "  ;  an  illustration  or 
application  which  will  be  considered,  we  suppose,  sufficiently 
fanciful.  Moreover,  he  continues,  addressing  the  emperor, 
your  standards,  which  are  borne  before  you  in  public  as  ensigns 
of  power  and  royalty,  demonstrate  the  efficacy  of  this  figure. 
In  this  form,  too,  ye  conseci'ate  the  images  of  your  dead  empe- 
rors, and  number  them  with  the  gods.  J 

God,  he  observes  to  Trypho,  teaching  us  the  mystery  of 
the  cross,  says,  in  the  blessing  with  which  he  blesses  Joseph,  § 
"  The  horns  of  a  unicorn  are  his,  and  with  them  shall  he  push 
the  nations  to  the  end  of  the  earth."  Now,  the  horns  of  the 
unicorn,  he  continues,  exhibit,  as  it  can  be  demonstrated,  no 
other  figure  than  that  of  a  cross  ;  and  this  he  attempts  to  show 
by  a  very  minute  analysis.  Then  as  to  the  assertion,  "  With 
them  shall  he  push  the  nations  to  the  extremities  of  the 
earth  "  :  this  is  no  more  than  what  is  now  taking  place  among 
all  people  ;  for,  struck  by  the  horn,  that  is,  penetrated  by  the 
mystery  of  the  cross,  they  of  all  nations  are  turned  from  idols 
and  demons  to  the  worship  of  God.|| 

Again  :  when  the  people  warred  with  Amalek,^  and  Jesus 
(Joshua),  the  son  of  Nun,   led  the  battle,  Moses,  he  says, 

*  Free  Inquiry,  p.  29.  t  Lam.  iv.  20.  Apol.  I.,  p.  76  ;  Otto,  c.  56. 

}  Apol.  I.,  c.  55,  Otto.  §  Deut.  xxxiii.  17. 

II  Dial.,  p.  188  ;  Otto,  c.  91.         1  Exod.  xvii. 


48  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

prayed  with  his  arms  extended  in  the  form  of  a  cross  :  and  if 
they  were  at  any  time  lowered,  so  as  to  destroy  this  figure, 
the  tide  turned  against  the  Israehtes  ;  but,  as  long  as  this 
figure  was  preserved,  they  prevailed.  They  finally  conquered, 
he  gravely  remarks,  not  because  Moses  prayed,  but  because, 
while  the  name  of  Jesus  was  in  the  van  of  the  battle,  the 
former,  standing  or  sitting  with  his  arms  extended,  exhibited 
the  figure  of  a  cross.  His  sitting  or  bent  posture,  too,  he 
observes,  was  expressive  ;  and  thus  the  knee  is  bent,  or  the 
body  prostrated,  in  all  effectual  prayer.  Lastly,  the  rock  on 
which  he  sat  had,  says  he,  "  as  I  have  shown,"  a  symbolic 
reference  to  Christ.* 

Such  is  the  use  to  which  this  Father  converted  his  knowl- 
edge of  the  Scriptures,  and  such  the  arguments  by  which  he 
hoped  to  convince  the  philosophic  Emperor  of  Rome,  and  win 
to  the  faith  of  the  cross  the  obstinate  and  "  stiff-necked  "  Jew. 
In  interpreting  the  several  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  his- 
torical and  prophetical,  and  reasoning  upon  them,  he  follows 
his  own  wayward  fancy,  and  capricious  and  perverted  taste. 
He  appears  to  have  considered  any  application,  and  almost 
any  construction  of  its  language,  however  visionary  or  improb- 
able, justifiable,  upon  the  notion  he  had  taken  up,  that  some 
hidden  meaning  or  mystery  lay  couched  under  every  sentence, 
and  almost  every  word.  The  business  of  interpretation  he 
seems  to  have  regarded  as  little  more  than  a  task  of  inven- 
tion :  and  he  gives  evidence,  we  confess,  of  having  possessed 
an  imagination  sufficiently  prolific  ;  for  his  writings  teem  with 
the  most  odd  and  grotesque  fancies. 

We  intended  to  have  added  some  distinct  specimens  of  his 
weak  and  inconclusive  reasoning;  but  we  are  weary  of  our 
theme,  and  doubt  not  that  our  readers  are  so  too.  Nor,  after 
what  Ave  have  said,  will  they  deem  further  illustration  of  his 
intellectual  character  and  habits  necessary.  They  will  readily 
credit  us,  we  trust,  when  we  affirm  that  his  logic  is  entitled 
to  as  little  respect  as  his  talent  for  criticism  and  exposition  ; 
though  the  latter,  particularly,  he  claims  to  have  received  as  a 
special  gift  of  God's  grace.  This  power,  he  says,  is  not  in 
me  ;  but,  by  the  grace  of  God  alone,  it  is  given  me  to  un- 
derstand his  Scriptures. 

*  Dial.,  pp.  187,  188  ;  Otto,  c.  90. 


HIS  LEARNING.  49 

He  has  been  extolled,  as  we  have  said,  for  his  multifarious 
and  profound  acquisitions.  Yet  he  began  by  despising  the 
exact  sciences  ;  and  seems,  through  life,  to  have  treated  them 
with  thorough  contempt.  That  he  could  have  possessed  only 
scanty  stores  of  philological  learning  is  rendered  evident  by 
the  whole  tenor  of  our  foregoing  remarks.  He  was  ignorant, 
or  knew  very  little,  of  the  original  language  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  appears  from  the  criticisms  he  occasionally  introduces 
on  Hebrew  words.  He  often,  however,  quotes  the  poets  of 
Greece,  and  refers  to  the  writings  of  her  philosophers ;  and 
with  the  doctrines  of  her  distinguished  schools  he  appears  to 
have  been  tolerably  well  acquainted.  Yet  it  is  evident  that 
his  reading  was  neither  exact  nor  profound.  Photius  extols 
his  affluence  of  historical  knowledge  and  varied  learning,  as 
well  as  his  sublime  attainments  in  philosophy ;  but  his  writ- 
ings fail  of  confirming  this  judgment.  We  have  seen  what  his 
pretensions  in  chronology  are.  He  never  appears  to  have 
thought  of  sifting  his  authorities,  and  was  eminently  "  uncriti- 
cal"  in  everything,  —  history,  philology,  exegesis,  and  what- 
ever else  is  involved  in  the  subjects  of  which  he  treats. 


60  JUSTIN  MARTIB. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Theology  of  Justin.  —  Origin  of  the  Trinity.  —  Justin's  Doctrine 
OF  THE  Logos. — His  Language  cited.  —  The  Logos  a  Hypostatized 
Attribute  of  the  Father.  —  Converted  into  a  Real  Being  in  Time, 
AND  not  from  Eternity.  —  The  Son  numerically  different  from 
THE  Father.  —  Voluntarily  begotten. 

We  proceed  now  to  speak  of  the  theology  of  Justin  ;  and, 
first,  of  what  occupies  a  prominent,  we  may  say  the  most 
prominent,  place  in  it,  —  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  or  divine 
nature  of  Christ,  as  it  has  been  since  called.  The  topic  is  one 
of  special  importance  to  those  who  would  understand  the  the- 
ology of  the  Fathers,  or  would  know  what  support  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  really  derives  from  the  writings  of  early 
Christian  antiquity.  It  is  a  topic  which,  on  proceeding  to  the 
inquiry  how  far  the  general  belief  of  the  Christian  Church  in 
later  times  is  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  these  writings, 
presents  itself  at  the  very  threshold,  and  one  on  which  it  is 
desirable  that  we  should  obtain  precise  ideas  ;  since,  without 
them,  the  writings  of  the  subsequent  Fathers  will  present  a 
labyrinth  which  it  will  not  be  easy  to  thread.  But  having 
once  settled  the  meaning  of  Justin's  terms,  and  the  real  pur- 
port of  his  opinions,  we  shall  find  some  gleam  of  light  to  guide 
us  on  our  way.  These  considerations  must  constitute  our 
apology  for  the  length  of  some  of  the  discussions  introduced  Ik 
this  and  some  subsequent  chapters.  We  are  aware,  that,  to 
the  general  reader,  discussions  of  this  sort  must  necessarily  be 
somewhat  dry ;  as  is  the  whole  subject,  in  fact,  of  the  histori- 
cal development  of  the  Trinity,  to  which  they  belong.  But 
they  who  would  understand  the  theology  of  the  Fathers  have 
no  very  smooth  road  to  travel. 

The  points  to  be  settled  are,  in  what  sense  Justin  used  the 
term  "  Logos,"  as  applied  to  Jesus ;  what  were  the  nature 
and  rank  assigned  him  by  this  early  Father ;  and  whence  his 


OEIGIN    OF   THE   TRINITY.  61 

peculiar  views  were  derived.  The  great  similarity  between 
his  doctrine  of  the  Logos  and  that  taught  by  Philo  and  the 
Alexandrian  Platonists,  is  not  denied.  They,  however,  who 
ascribe  a  scriptural  origin  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  con- 
tend that  "  the  substance  of  Justin's  idea  of  the  Logos  rests 
on  a  purely  scriptural  and  Christian  foundation  "  ;  though  they 
are  compelled  to  admit  that  this  idea  was  modified,  and  re- 
ceived its  scientific  form,  through  the  influence  of  the  "  Alex- 
andrian and  Philonic  theosophy."  The  early  Fathers,  says 
Semisch,  from  whom  the  expressions  just  used  are  taken, 
"  only  poured  the  contents  of  the  Scriptures  into  a  Philonian 
vessel :  they  viewed  the  biblical  passages  through  a  Philo- 
nian medium.  The  matter  of  their  idea  of  the  Logos  is 
essentially  scriptural ;  but  its  construction  betrays  a  Philonian 
ground-plan.  Thus  it  is  with  Justin."  *  To  this  statement 
we  cannot  assent.  We  believe,  and  trust  that  we  shall  be 
able  to  show,  that,  for  the  original  and  distinctive  features  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  as  held  by  the  learned  Fathers  of 

*  Vol.  ii.  p.  180.  The  work  referred  to  is,  Justin  Martyr, — his  Life, 
Writings,  and  Opinions,  by  the  Rev.  Charles  Semisch.  Translated  from  the 
German,  by  J.  E.  Ryland.     2  vols.     Edinburgh,  1843.     16mo. 

These  volumes  are  the  fruit  of  much  labor ;  and  though  they  lead  to  no  new 
results  in  regard  to  the  life,  character,  position,  and  writings  of  Justin,  yet,  in 
some  particulars,  they  contain  a  useful  summary  of  his  views ;  wliile,  in  oth- 
ers, they  present,  as  we  think,  a  most  distorted  representation  of  tliem.  The 
best  parts  are  those  which  relate  to  liis  mode  of  defending  Christianity,  and  his 
attacks  on  Judaism  and  Heathenism,  vol.  i.  pp.  306-332,  and  vol.  ii.  pp.  1-128. 
From  these  the  careful  reader  will  learn,  not  what  arguments  for  the  truth 
and  divine  origin  of  Christianity  are  most  solid,  but  what  arguments  presented 
themselves  to  the  mind  of  a  well-educated  Christian  of  the  second  century, 
and  what  he  considered  as  most  valid  against  the  objections  urged  in  his  day. 
How  miracles  were  regarded  appears  from  vol.  ii.  pp.  100-128.  This  part  is 
well  executed.  The  writer's  statement  of  Justin's  doctrine  of  the  Logos, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  165-206,  has  in  it  many  features  of  truth ;  but,  when  he  comes  to 
trace  this  doctrine  to  its  source,  he  is,  in  our  opinion,  wholly  at  fault.  The 
chapter  on  the  Holy  Spirit  contains  a  total  misrepresentation  of  the  opinions 
of  Justin.  It  is,  from  beginning  to  end,  a  tissue  of  bad  reasoning,  and  false 
and  contradictory  statement.  The  chapter  on  Justin's  Doctrine  of  Salvation, 
too,  contains  several  misstatements  of  his  views.  Tlie  writer's  general  esti- 
mate of  Justin's  literary  and  intellectual  character,  however,  is  sufficiently 
correct ;  and  the  work,  to  one  who  knows  how  to  use  it,  may  form  a  profit- 
able study.  But  the  misfortune  is,  that  a  person  must  be  already  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  writings  and  opinions  of  Justin,  in  order  to  distinguish  what 
IB  true  from  what  is  false  in  its  statements. 


52  JUSTIN   MARTYE. 

the  second  and  third  centuries,  we  must  look,  not  to  the  Jew- 
ish Scriptures,  nor  to  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  liis  Apostles, 
but  to  Philo  and  the  Alexandrian  Platonists.  In  consistency 
with  this  view,  we  maintain  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
was  of  gradual  and  comparatively  late  formation  ;  that  it  had 
its  origin  in  a  source  entirely  foreign  from  that  of  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  Scriptui'es  ;  that  it  grew  up,  and  was  ingrafted 
on  Christianity,  through  the  hands  of  the  Platonizing  Fathers  ; 
that  in  the  time  of  Justin,  and  long  after,  the  distinct  nature 
and  inferiority  of  the  Son  were  universally  taught ;  and  that 
only  the  first  shadowy  outline  of  the  Trinity  had  then  become 
visible. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Logos,  Justin  has  expressed  himself 
much  at  length ;  and,  though  he  is  occasionally  somewhat 
obscure  and  mystical,  a  careful  examination  of  the  several 
terms  and  illusti^ations  he  employs  leaves  little  doubt  as  to 
his  real  meaning.  His  system  presents  one  or  two  great 
and  prominent  features,  which  we  can  hardly  fail  to  seize, 
and  which  will  serve  as  the  basis  of  our  future  reasonings. 
Before  we  proceed  to  our  citations,  however,  we  must  request 
our  readers  to  bear  in  mind,  that  both  Jews  and  Heathens 
constantly  alleged  the  humble  origin  and  ignominious  death 
of  Jesus  as  a  reproach  on  Christianity.  Other  sects  borrowed 
lustre  from  the  names  of  their  founders ;  but  the  "  new 
superstition,"  as  it  was  called,  which  now  began  widely  to 
diffuse  itself,  was  derived,  as  it  was  urged,  from  an  obscure 
individual,  who  perished  as  a  malefactor,  with  every  mark  of 
ignominy.  This  stigma  Paul  had  disregarded :  he  gloried  in 
what  was  "  to  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block,  and  to  the  Greeks 
foolishness."  But  the  Christians  of  Justin's  time  occupied  a 
different  position ;  and  whether  or  not  the  learned  defenders 
of  Christianity,  in  what  they  taught  of  the  preexistent  Logos, 
and  the  great  stress  they  laid  on  the  miraculous  birth,  were, 
as  has  been  maintained,  influenced,  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously, by  a  desire  to  wipe  off"  the  reproach  of  the  cross, 
certain  it  is,  their  doctrines  had  a  tendency  this  way.  Both 
the  Jewish  and  the  Heathen  objections  were,  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent, met  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos. 

Let  us  see  what  Justin  says  of  the  Logos.     In  his  second 


HIS  LANGUAGE   RESPECTING   THE   LOGOS.  53 

Apology  he  speaks  of  the  "  Son  "  as  the  "  Logos,  that,  before 
created  things,  was  with  God,  and  begotten,  when,  through 
him,  he  [God]  in  the  beginning  created  and  adorned  all 
things."  *  The  meanino-  is,  that  he  was  converted  into  a  real 
being,  having  a  separate  personal  subsistence,  at  the  time  God, 
using  him  as  his  instrument,  was  about  to  proceed  to  the  work 
of  creation.  That  this  is  the  meaning  is  obvious  from  the  use 
of  the  term  "  when  "  (we  use  Otto's  text)  :  he  was  begotten 
of  God  "  when  through  him  he  created  and  embellished  all 
things," — language  which  makes  the  two  acts  almost  simul- 
taneoiis,  the  one  taking  place  immediately  before  the  other. 
The  doctrine  of  the  "  eternal  generation  "  of  the  Son  is  ex- 
cluded :  this  was  no  doctrine  of  Justin.  The  attribute,  like  all 
the  divine  attributes,  was  eternal ;  but  it  became  hypostatized^ 
or  converted  into  a  real  person,  in  time ;  that  is,  just  before 
the  creation  of  the  world.  Justin  elsewhere,  as  we  shall 
presently  see,  speaks  of  the  Son  as  the  "  beginning "  of 
God's  "  ways  to  his  works." 

Again :  Justin  says,  "  In  the  beginning  "  (or,  as  Otto  un- 
derstands it,  "As  the  beginning"),  "before  all  creatures, 
God  begat  of  himself  a  certain  rational  power,  which,  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  is  also  called  the  Glory  of  the  Lord,  —  now  Son, 
now  Wisdom,  now  Angel,  now  God,  now  Lord,  and  Logos 
(reason,  wisdom,  or  speech)  ;  and  by  himself  is  called  Chief 
Captain  (Captain  cf  the  host.  Josh.  v.  14),  Avhen  in  the  form 
of  man  he  appears  to  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun :  for  all  these 
appellations  he  has,  because  he  ministers  to  the  will  of  the 
Father,  and,  by  the  volition  of  the  Father,  was  begotten."  f 
To  explain  this  process  of  generation,  Justin  takes  the  exam- 
ples of  human  speech  and  of  fire.  "  For,  in  uttering  speech  " 
(logos),  he  says,  "  we  beget  speech  ;  yet  not  by  abscission, 
so  that  the  speech  (logos)  that  is  in  us,"  or  power  of  speech,  or 
reason  whence  speech  proceeds,  "  is  by  this  act  diminished." 
So,  too,  he  adds,  "  One  torch  is  lighted  from  another,  without 
diminishing  that  from  which  it  is  lighted  ;  but  the  latter  re 

*  Apol.  II.,  c.  6,  Otto.  See  also  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  c.  62,  where  similar  lan- 
guage is  found. 

t  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  c.  61,  Otto.  "  In,"  or  "As  the  beginning,"  or  God  so 
making  a  beginning,  this  being  the  first  act  of  creation.     See  Otto's  note. 


64  JUSTIN   MARTYR. 

maining  unaltered,  that  which  is  hghted  from  it  exists  and 
appears,  without  lessening  that  whence  it  was  lighted."  * 
These  are  intended  to  be  illustrations  of  the  mode  in  which 
the  Son  is  produced  from  the  Father.  In  confirmation  of  his 
views,  Justin  quotes  from  the  Septuagint  version  the  passage 
in  Proverbs,  f  in  which  Wisdom,  by  which  he  supposes  is 
meant  the  Son,  is  represented  as  saying,  "  The  Lord  created 
me  the  beginning  of  his  ways  to  his  works :  before  the  ages 
he  founded  me  ;  in  the  beginning,  before  he  made  the  earth 
or  the  abyss,  before  the  hills,  he  begat  me."  This  Wisdom 
Justin  regarded  as  God's  offspring,  produced  as  above  de- 
scribed ;  and  him,  this  first  of  his  productions,  he  supposes 
God  to  address,  when  he  says  (Gen.  i.  26),  "Let  us  make 
man  in  our  own  image."  J 

Language  similar  to  the  above  occurs  in  the  first  Apology, 
with  an  additional  observation  worthy  of  notice.  Christ  is 
"  the  first-born  of  God,  and  that  reason  [logos,  ambiguous  in 
the  original,  meaning  either  reason  or  speech,  word]  of  which 
the  whole  human  race  partakes  ;  and  those  who  have  lived 
according  to  reason  are  Christians,  though  esteemed  atheists. 
Such  among  the  Greeks  were  Socrates  and  Heraclitus,  and 
others  like  them ;  and,  among  the  Barbarians,  Abraham, 
Ananias,  Azarias,  Misael,  Elias,  and  many  others."  §  So,  in 
the  second  Apology,  we  are  told  that  Socrates  "  knew  Christ 
in  part;  for  he  is  that  reason  (logos)  which  is  in  all "  :  ||  and 
whatever  was  well  said  or  done  by  philosophers  and  legislators 
is  to  be  attributed  to  the  Logos  in  part  shared  by  them.  He 
calls  it  the  "  insown  "  or  "  implanted  "  logos,  or  reason ;  of 
the  seed  of  which  all  possess  some  portion.  These  and  other 
equivalent  expressions  occur  more  than  once.  They  seem 
intended  to  refer  to  a  principle  different  from  the  ordinary 
faculty  of  reason  in  man ;    that  is,  to  a  peculiarly  existing 

*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  c.  61,  Otto. 

t  Ihid.,  Prov.  viii.  22-36  :  "  The  Lord  created  rae  the  beginning  of  his  ways," 
etc.  So  Origen  and  Tertullian,  as  well  as  Justin,  understood  the  passage. 
See  Otto,  in  loc,  notes  1  and  12.  Tertullian  (Adv.  Hermog.,  c.  3)  says  ex 
pressly,  "  There  was  a  time  when  the  Son  was  not." 

I  Dial,  pp.  158,  159 ;  Thirlby,  pp.  266,  268 ;  Otto,  c.  62. 
§  Apol.  I.,  p.  71 ;  Otto,  c.  46. 

II  Apol.  II.,  p.  95 ;  Otto,  c.  10. 


THE   LOGOS   CONVERTED   INTO    A   EEAL   BEING.  55 

Logos,  or  reason,  which  has  in  its  nature  something  divine, 
being  derived  immediately  from  God.  This  Logos  was  Christ, 
who  afterwards  became  flesh.  It  guided  Abraham  and  the 
patriarchs ;  inspired  the  prophets :  and  the  seed  of  it  being 
implanted,  as  just  said,  in  every  mind,  all,  as  well  illiterate 
as  philosophers,  who  in  former  ages  obeyed  its  impulse,  were 
partakers  of  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  might  therefore 
be  called  Christians,  and,  as  such,  were  entitled  to  salva- 
tion.* The  Gentile  philosophers  and  legislators,  knowing  the 
Logos  only  in  part,  fell  into  error ;  but  Christ  is  the  "  whole 
Logos,"  which  Christians  possess,  and  are  therefore  more  en- 
lightened, f 

That  Justin  believed  this  divine  principle  of  reason  to  be 
converted  into  a  real  being,  the  following  passage,  among 
numerous  others,  plainly  and  expressly  shows.  We  give  the 
passage,  which  in  the  original  is  exceedingly  prolix,  in  an 
epitomized  form,  but  without  injury,  we  believe,  to  the  sense. 
There  are,  he  says,  some  who  suppose  that  the  Son  is  only  a 
virtue  or  energy  of  the  Father,  emitted  as  occasion  requires, 
and  then  again  recalled :  as,  for  example,  when  it  comes  to 
announce  the  commands  of  the  Father,  and  is  therefore  called 
a  messenger  ;  or  when  it  bears  the  Father's  discourse  to  men, 
and  is  then  called  Logos.  They,  as  he  observes,  think  that 
the  Son  is  inseparable  from  the  Father,  as  the  light  of  the  sun 
on  the  earth  is  inseparable  from  the  sun  Avhich  is  in  the  heav- 
ens, and  is  withdrawn  with  it  at  its  setting.  But  from  these, 
he  tells  us,  he  differs.  Angels  have  a  separate  and  permanent 
existence :  so  this  virtue,  which  the  prophetic  spirit  calls  God 
and  Angel,  is  not,  as  the  light  of  the  sun,  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  Father  in  name  only,  but  is  something  numerically 
different;  that  is,  it  is  not  the  Father  under  another  name, 
but  a  real  being,  wholly  distinct  from  him.  J 

Justin  frequently  draws  comparisons  and  illustrations  from 
the  Heathen  mythology.  The  following,  in  which  Mercury 
s  introduced,  presents  a  coincidence  of  language  a  little  re- 

*  Apol.  II.,  p.  95;  Otto,  c.  10;  also  Dial.,  c.  45,  Otto. 

t  Apol.  II.,  c.  8-13,  Otto. 

t  Dial.,  p.  221 ;  Thirlby,  pp.  412,  413 ;  Otto,  c.  128. 


56  JUSTIN   MARTYR. 

markable :  "  When  we  say  that  Jesus  Christ,  our  teacher,  was 
the  Logos,  the  first  progeny  of  God,  born  without  commixtion ; 
that  he  was  crucified,  and  died,  and  arose,  and  ascended  into 
heaven,  —  we  affirm  nothing  different  from  what  is  said  by 
you  of  the  sons  of  Jove,  and  nothing  new.  You  know  how 
many  sons  your  esteemed  writers  attribute  to  him.  There  is 
Mercury,  the  interpreting  logos,  and  teacher  of  all;  JEscula- 
pius,"  and  the  rest ;  between  whom  and  Jesus,  Justin  pro- 
ceeds to  draw  a  paralleh* 

Again  :  speaking  of  the  generation  of  the  Son,  he  says, 
"  When  we  call  him  the  Logos  of  God,  born  of  him  in  a 
peculiar  manner,  and  out  of  the  course  of  ordinary  births, 
we  speak  a  common  language  with  you,  who  call  Mercury 
the  angelic  logos  fi'om  God."f  The  meaning  seems  to  be: 
"  We  speak  of  a  true  and  real  person,  so  born,  as  we  have 
said,  whom  we  call  Logos  (speech)  :  a  term  you  apply  to 
Mercury." 

From  the  extracts  above  given,  it  is  evident,  that,  although 
Justin  employs  the  term  "  Logos  "  in  different  senses,  the 
primary  meaning  he  usually  attributes  to  it,  when  used  with 
reference  to  God,  is  reason,  considered  as  an  attribute  of  the 
Father ;  and  that,  by  the  generation  of  the  Son,  he  under- 
stood the  conversion  of  this  attribute  into  a  real  person. 
The  Logos,  which  afterwards  became  flesh,  originally  existed 
in  God  as  his  reason,  or  perhaps  his  wisdom  or  energy.  Hav- 
ing so  existed  from  eternity,  it  was,  a  little  before  the  creation 
of  the  world,  voluntarily  begotten,  thrown  out,  or  emitted, 
by  the  Father,  or  proceeded  from  him ;  for  these  terms  are 
used  indiscriminately  to  express  the  generation  of  the  Son,  or 
the  process  by  which  what  before  was  a  quality  acquired  a 
distinct  personal  subsistence.  That  such  was  the  doctrine  of 
Justin,  and  of  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers  generally,  concerning 
the  generation  of  the  Son,  the  whole  strain  of  their  writings 
affords  abundant  evidence.  They  supposed,  we  repeat,  that 
the  logos,  or  reason,  which  once  constituted  an  attribute  of  the 
Father,  was  at  length  converted  into  a  real  being,  and  that 

*  Apol  I.,  p.  56  ;  Thirlby,  p.  31 ;  Otto,  c.  21. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  57 ;  Thirlby,  p.  33 ;  Otto,  c.  22. 


GENEn.ATTON   OP   THE   SON.  6? 

this  was  done  by  a  voluntary  act  of  the  Father.  To  this 
process  they  applied  the  term  "  generation,"  and  sometimes 
"  emission  "  or  "  prolation  "  ;  nor  do  they  appear  originally  to 
have  objected  to  that  of  "  creation."  * 

*  Trypho  is  allowed,  without  contradiction,  to  speak  of  Christ  as  "  made 
by  God"  (Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  c.  64).  Tatian  calls  him  the  "first-begotten 
work  of  the  Father,"  hpyov  npuroTOKOV  tov  iraTpoi  ( Oral,  ad  Grcec,  c.  5). 


58  JUSTIN   MARIYM. 


CHAPTER   V. 

The  Views  of  Justin  and  the  Fathers  not  derived  from  the  Old 
Testament.  —  Language  of  the  Old  Testament  examined.  —  Or 
THE  New.  —  Justin  ingrafted  on  Christianity  the  Sentiments  of 
the  Later  Platonists.  —  Statements  of  Learned  Trinitarians.  — 
Philo's  Doctrine  of  the  Logos. — Attempts  to  soften  the  Charge 

OF  PLATONISM  AOAIITST   IHB  FaTHEBS. 

The  inquiry  now  presents  itself,  Whence  were  these  views, 
which  evidently  constitute  the  germ  of  the  Trinity,  derived  ? 
From  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Scriptures  ?  or  from  the  doc- 
trines of  Plato,  as  expounded  by  his  later  followers,  and  espe- 
cially the  Jew  Philo  ?  We  say,  without  hesitation,  the  latter. 
The  term  "  Logos,"  which  Justin  and  the  other  Fathers  use 
to  express  the  divine  nature  of  the  Son,  frequently  occurs,  as 
our  learned  readers  well  know,  in  the  Septuagint  version  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  is  rendered  in  our  Bibles  by 
"Word."  But  neither  the  original  Hebrew  term,  nor  the 
corresponding  term,  "  Logos,"  in  the  Septuagint,  ever  bears 
the  meaning  which  these  Fathers  attach  to  it,  but  is  used  in  a 
totally  different  sense ;  nor  do  we  find,  in  the  whole  Bible,  the 
least  trace  of  the  generation  of  the  Son  by  the  conversion  of 
an  attribute  of  the  Father  into  a  real  person.  In  passages 
like  the  following,  "  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the 
heavens  made,"  Justin  supposes  that  it  was  meant  to  be 
asserted  that  they  were  made  by  the  rational  power,  or  Son, 
here  referred  to.  The  expressions  in  Proverbs  —  "  The  Lord 
created  me  the  beginning  of  his  ways  "  ;  "  before  the  depths 
he  begat  me"  —  were  adduced  as  referring  to  his  birth,  or 
production.  Numerous  other  expressions,  occurring  in  the 
Old  Testament,  may  be  referred  to  the  same  class,  and  were 
txplained  in  a  similar  manner.  But  the  Jews  attributed  no 
such  meaning  to  the  language  in  question  ;  nor  does  it  appear 
naturally  fitted  to  suggest  it.     The  notions  it  conveyed  to 


LANGUAGE   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  59 

their  minds  were  very  simple  and  obvious.  The  sentiments 
of  the  Fathers  savored  of  a  metaphysical  and  speculative 
philosophy,  evidently  the  growth  of  a  different  soil.  The 
Jews  were  not  familiar  with  the  abstractions  of  philosophy, 
as  their  current  phraseology  bears  ample  testimony.  They 
describe  the  perfections  and  agency  of  the  Divine  Being  in 
precisely  the  language  which  we  should  expect  would  occui 
to  the  minds  of  an  exceedingly  primitive,  and  in  some  respects 
rude,  people.  They  resort,  as  was  natural,  chiefly  to  compar- 
isons and  images,  borrowed  fi'om  sensible  objects  and  human 
modes  of  action.  Their  views  were  very  little  spiritualized ; 
and  many  of  the  expressions  they  employed  in  reference  to 
the  Deity  were  strictly  anthropomorphitical. 

We  will  explain  our  meaning  by  a  few  examples,  in  which 
the  attributes  and  agency  of  God  are  illustrated  by  allusions, 
which  to  us,  familiar  as  we  are  with  the  sublimer  discoveries 
of  Christianity  and  the  improvements  of  modern  science,  ap- 
pear feeble  and  inadequate.  Thus,  to  convey  a  notion  of  his 
eternity,  they  speak  of  him  as  existing  before  the  hills.  To 
aid  the  imagination  in  comprehending  his  immensity  and  great- 
ness, they  are  content  to  draw  illustrations  from  human  sover- 
eignty. They  represent  hira  as  a  mighty  King,  having  the 
heavens  for  his  throne,  and  the  earth  for  his  footstool.  To 
give  some  conception  of  his  power,  his  universal  presence,  and 
knowledge  embracing  all  objects,  they  describe  him  as  having 
human  organs,  —  as  hands,  eyes,  and  ears,  —  ever  active  and 
vigilant.  His  eyes  run  to  and  fro  over  the  whole  earth  ;  his 
arm  is  outstretched  to  punish  or  to  save  ;  he  whets  his  sword, 
he  bends  his  bow,  he  discharges  the  swift  arrows  of  his  wrath. 
When  he  wishes  to  know  what  is  passing  on  earth,  he  is  ex- 
hibited to  our  view  as  descending  from  a  height  above  us ; 
thus  :  "  The  Lord  came  down  to  see  the  tower  which  the 
children  of  men  builded."  *  Again  :  hearing  reports  of  the 
wickedness  of  Sodom,  he  resolves  to  "  go  down,"  and  ascer- 
tain whether  they  are  correct ;  "  and,  if  not,"  he  is  introduced 
as  saying,  "  I  will  know."  f  He  is  described  as  walking 
abroad,  and  conversing  familiarly  with  man  ;  as  having  human 
passions  and  affections  ;  as  repenting  and  grieved  for  what  he 
*  Gen.  xi.  5.  t  Gen.  xviii.  21 


60  JUSTIN    MARTTE. 

had  done  ;  as  angry  and  taking  revenge  ;  as  laughing  at 
the  distresses  of  his  enemies  ;  as  mocking  and  deriding.  In 
consistency  with  this  language,  which  ascribes  to  him  human 
organs,  affections,  and  modes  of  action,  he  is  represented, 
when  about  to  exert  his  power,  or  produce  an  effect  he  wills, 
as  speaking^  or  issuing  his  word^  or  command.  Thus,  in  the 
process  of  creation,  he  is  introduced  as  proclaiming  an  order  at 
every  step  :  "  Let  there  be  light.  Let  there  be  a  firmament. 
Let  the  waters  under  the  heaven  be  gathered  together  into 
one  place,  and  let  the  dry  land  appear.  Let  us  make  man." 
Everything  is  said  to  be  done  by  a  command,  because  human 
sovereigns  are  accustomed  to  issue  a  word^  or  order,  when 
they  wish  their  designs  to  be  carried  into  effect.  In  conform- 
ity with  this  usage,  the  Psalmist  says,  "  By  the  word  of  the 
Lord  were  the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the 
breath  of  his  mouth.  He  spake,  and  it  was  done  ;  he  com- 
manded, and  it  stood  fast."  *  In  all  this  there  is  no  mystery.f 
God  issues  his  command,  or  his  word,  and  it  is  executed,  and  • 
the  heavens  and  the  earth  appear :  that  is,  he  produces  an 
effect ;  there  is  an  exertion  of  his  power  ;  he  wills,  and  the 
event  corresponds  to  his  will.  Here  is  no  allusion  to  any 
intermediate  agent,  —  to  a  Son,  who  receives  and  executes  his 
commands  :  a  rational  power,  emanating  from  his  own  sub- 
stance, and  forming  a  link  between  him  and  his  creatures. 
All  this  is  a  fiction  of  later  times. 

Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  "  word,"  or  "  word  of  the 
Lord,"  as  used  by  Moses,  the  patriarchs,  and  by  David.  The 
notion  the  Jews  attached  to  it  was  the  simplest  and  most 
obvious  imaginable.  There  is  no  obscurity  whatever  attend- 
ing it.  The  term  formed  part  of  their  anthroporaorphitical 
language,  and  is  to  be  classed  with  other  terms  constantly  used 
by  them  in  reference  to  the  Deity,  —  as  hands,  mouth,  nos- 
trils, all  of  which  they  apply  to  him.     A  similar  explanation 


*  Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  9. 

t  All  the  effects  of  his  provident  designs,  every  occurrence  which  takes  place 
by  his  remote  agency,  is  spoken  of  in  similar  language  ;  thus  :  "  He  sendeth 
forth  his  commandment  upon  earth  ;  his  word  runnetli  very  swiftly.  He  giv 
eth  snow  like  wool ;  he  scattereth  the  hoar-frost  like  ashes.  He  sendeth  out 
his  word,  and  melteth  them."   (Ps.  cxlvii.  15,  16,  18.) 


FIGURES   OF   SPEECH.  61 

Is  to  be  given  of  the  term  when  it  occurs  in  such  phrases  as 
the  following :  "  The  word  of  God  came  to  Nathan,"  or  to 
the  propliets.  This  is  a  mere  idiom  of  speech,  growing  out  of 
the  very  primitive  notions  of  the  people  who  employed  it. 
It  was  not  the  result  of  policy  or  reflection,  but  rather  of 
untutored  and  childlike  simplicity.  The  meaning  is,  simply, 
that  the  prophets  received  divine  communications.  The  Apos- 
tle very  correctly  expresses  this  meaning,  when  he  says,  "  Holy 
men  of  God  spake  as  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  ;  that  is, 
by  a  divine  impulse.* 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  the  Proverbs,  or  the  ethical  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Justin  and  the  other  Fathers,  as  before 
stated,  imagined  that  by  Wisdom,  of  which  we  have  a  magnifi- 
cent description  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Proverbs,  was  meant 
the  Logos,  or  Son,  —  a  real  being,  the  agent  or  minister  of  the 
Father  in  the  work  of  creation. f  But  the  author  of  the  chap- 
ter in  question  had  evidently  no  such  thought.  Nothing,  in 
fact,  was  further  from  his  meaning,  as  the  whole  structure  and 
connection  of  the  passage  put  beyond  doubt.  The  Oriental 
imagination,  as  every  one  knows,  delighted  in  metaphor  and 
bold  and  striking  imagery.  The  strongest  figures  were  often 
employed  to  express  a  very  obvious  and  simple  fact  or  senti- 
ment ;  and,  among  these,  a  favorite  one  was  personification, 
by  which  abstract  qualities  are  clothed  with  the  properties  of 
a  real  being,  and  represented  as  speaking  and  acting  as  such. 
This  figui-e  frequently  occurs  in  the  sacred  writings  of  the 
Jews,  particularly  in  their  poetical  books.  Thus  truth,  justige, 
mercy,  and  other  abstract  properties,  are  often  introduced  as 
possessing  proper  personality  ;  in  other  words,  as  real  beings  : 
as,  "  Mercy  and  Truth  are  met  together  ;  Righteousness  and 
Peace  have  kissed  each  other.     Truth  shall  spring  out  of  the 

*  2  Pet.  i.  21. 

t  Dr.  Watts  once  supposed,  that  by  Wisdom,  in  this  place,  was  meant 
Christ's  preexistent  human  soul  united  with  the  divine  nature  { Glori/ of  Christ, 
Disc.  iii.  §  5).  He  was  led  into  a  belief  of  this  strange  doctrine  of  the  pre- 
jxistence  of  Christ's  human  soul  from  the  circumstance  tliat  the  Scriptures, 
in  several  passages  in  which,  as  he  supposes,  they  speak  of  his  existence  be- 
fore his  incarnation,  evidently  ascribe  to  him  a  nature  inferior  to  God.  We 
are  not  surprised  that  Dr.  Watts,  entertaining  these  views,  afterwards  became 
a  Unitarian. 


62  JUSTIN   MARTYE. 

earth,  and  Righteousness  shall  look  down  from  heaven."  * 
By  the  same  lively  figure,  the  author  of  the  Proverbs  gives 
Wisdom  a  voice,  and  represents  her  as  offering  counsel  and 
admonition,  and  calling  on  men  to  listen  :  and,  to  show  her 
title  to  respect,  she  proceeds  to  describe  her  antiquity  and 
excellence  ;  speaks  of  herself  as  guiding  the  great  and  noble 
of  the  earth  ;  as  having  her  residence  of  old  with  God,  as  one 
brought  up  with  him,  and  rejoicing  always  in  his  presence. 
The  purport  of  this  language,  no  one,  at  the  present  day,  mis- 
takes. All  admit  it  to  be  only  a  bold  personification  of  the 
attribute  of  wisdom,  as  it  is  possessed  by  the  Divine  Being, 
and,  in  a  feebler  degree,  by  his  intelligent  offspring  ;  in  other 
words,  only  a  well-known  rhetorical  figure. f  Such  language 
could  never  have  suggested  to  the  early  Fathers  their  peculiar 
views  of  the  Logos,  or  Son  of  God.  J  That  they  should  have 
considered  it  as  having  reference  to  him,  after  those  views 
had  been  imbibed  from  other  sources,  need  not,  however,  sur- 
prise us. 

If  we  proceed  to  examine  the  writings  of  the  Jews  which 
belong  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the  formation  of  the  sacred 
canon,  and  which,  though  not  of  authority  as  a  rule  of  faith, 
are  yet  valuable  as  a  record  of  opinions,  we  arrive  at  conclu- 
sions similar  to  the  foregoing.  We  find  instances  of  bold 
personification,  but  discover  no  traces  of  the  metaphysical  doc- 
trine of  the  Logos,  or  generation  of  the  Son,  as  held  by  the 
early  Christian  Fathers.  § 

*  Ps.  Ixxxv.  10,  11. 

t  Similar  instances  of  personification  occur  in  the  literature  of  all  nations, 
and  are  resorted  to  occasionally  by  the  gravest  writers.  Hooker,  in  his  Eccle- 
siastical Polity,  (b.  i.  ch.  16,)  has  a  specimen  of  it,  remarkable  for  its  beauty. 
Speaking  of  Law,  he  says,  "  Her  seat  is  the  bosom  of  God,  her  voice  the  har- 
mony of  the  world.  All  things  in  heaven  and  earth  do  her  homage  :  the  very 
least,  as  feeling  her  care  ;  and  the  greatest,  as  not  exempted  from  her  power." 

J  "The  Logos  did  not  grow  outof  the  Old  Testament,"  says  Bunsen  (i.  76). 
On  the  poetical  personifications  of  tlie  Old  Testament,  see  Hagenbach,  First 
Per.,  §  40. 

§  Thus,  the  author  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  work  of  some  Alexan- 
drian Jew,  though  he  sometimes  uses  expressions  which  savor  a  little  of  the 
Egyptian  school,  had  evidently  no  conception  of  the  conversion  of  an  attri- 
bute into  a  real  being.  After  speaking  of  Wisdom  as  "  the  breath  of  the 
power  of  God,  and  a  pure  influence  flowing  from  the  glory  of  the  Almighty, 
the  unspotted  mirror  of  the  power  of  God,  and  an  image  of  his  goodness,"  he 


LANGUAGE   OP   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  63 

If  we  turn  to  the  authors  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles 
of  the  New  Testament,  we  find  that  their  views  agree,  in  all 
essential  points,  with  those  inculcated  by  the  writers  under 
the  old  dispensation.  Their  language  and  conceptions  are 
more  spiritualized  and  refined.  There  is  less  of  grossness  in 
their  modes  of  representing  the  Deity.  Still,  much  of  the 
ancient  phraseology  is  retained ;  and,  where  a  departure  is 
made  from  it,  this  departure  is  not  such  as  indicates  that  the 
opinions  of  the  Jews,  or  Jewish  Christians,  concerning  the 
divine  nature  and  operations,  had  undergone  that  change 
which  the  supposition  of  their  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
generation  of  the  Son,  as  explained  by  the  Fathers,  would 
imply,  but  the  reverse.  The  New  Testament,  if  we  except 
the  introductory  verses  to  John's  Gospel,  is  remarkably  free 
from  expressions  which  have  the  least  appearance  of  favoring 
the  metaphysical  notions  of  the  Fathers  concerning  the  nature 
of  the  Son  ;  and  these  verses  favor  them  only  in  appearance.* 
The  remaining  part  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  is,  in  our  view, 
totally  opposed  to  those  notions,  and  everything  resembling 
them.  The  language  of  Jesus  and  his  Apostles  certainly 
never  could  have  suggested  them  ;  and  the  general  strain  of 
it  cannot,  by  the  greatest  exercise  of  ingenuity,  be  distorted 
into  a  shape  which  lends  them  the  feeblest  support.  To  those 
who  doubt  the  truth  of  this  statement  we  would  say.  Take 
the  language  of  Justin,  as  we  have  represented  it,  faithfully, 
as  we  believe  ;  render  your  minds  familiar  with  it ;  and  then 

proceeds  (chap.  viii.  3,  4)  :  "In  that  she  is  conversant  with  God,  she  magni- 
fieth  her  nobility ;  for  she  is  privy  to  the  mysteries  of  the  knowledge  of  God, 
and  a  lover  of  his  works."  In  a  prayer,  recorded  in  the  next  chapter,  the  fol- 
lowing expressions  occur  :  "  0  God  of  my  fathers,  and  Lord  of  mercy,  who 
hast  made  all  things  with  thy  word,  and  ordained  man  through  thy  wisdom ! 

....  give  me  Wisdom,  that  sitteth  by  thy  throne And  Wisdom  was 

with  thee,  which  knoweth  thy  works,  and  was  present  when  thou  madest  the 

world Oh !  send  her  out  of  thy  holy  heavens,  and  from  the  throne  ol 

thy  glory  "  (chap.  ix.  1,  2,  4,  9,  10).  Again:  the  son  of  Sirach  (Ecclus. 
xxiv.  3,  4,  9)  introduces  Wisdom  as  saying,  "  I  came  out  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Most  High  :  he  created  me  from  the  beginning,  before  the  world.  I  dwell  in 
high  places,  and  ray  throne  is  in  a  cloudy  pillar."  But  who  does  not  see  that 
these  instances  are  only  specimens  of  the  style  in  which  the  Oriental  genius, 
ever  fond  of  glowing  representations,  metaphor,  and  fiction,  is  accustomed  tc 
give  utterance  to  its  thoughts  ? 
*  See  Norton's  Statement  of  Reasons,  etc.,  p.  307,  etc.,  third  edition. 


64  JUSTIN    MAETYR. 

sit  down,  and  read  over  carefully  the  writings  of  the  Apostles 
and  Evangelists  :  you  will  rise  from  the  penisal,  we  are  confi- 
dent, with  a  firm  conviction,  that,  with  the  exception  above 
made,  no  trace  of  such  language  is  found  in  those  writings, 
and  that  they  could  not  possibly  have  been  the  source  whence 
it  was  derived.  This  conviction,  we  think,  must  force  itself 
upon  the  mind  of  every  one,  who,  without  prejudice,  com- 
pares the  style  of  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament  with 
that  of  Justin  and  subsequent  Fathers,  who  trod  in  his  steps. 
He  must  be  struck  with  the  total  dissimilarity  between  the 
two  classes  of  writings  ;  not  a  dissimilarity  in  modes  of  ex- 
pression merely,  but  a  real  dissimilarity,  or  rather  opposition, 
of  sentiment.  The  plain  inference  is,  that  the  Fathers  alluded 
to  drew  from  other  sources  besides  the  Bible,  and  that  they 
suffered  their  learning  to  corrupt  the  simplicity  of  their  faith.* 
This  inference  is  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  the  Logos- 
doctrine,  as  developed  by  Justin  Martyr  and  the  learned  writ- 
ers of  a  subsequent  age,  does  not  disclose  itself,  as  we  have 
seen  in  our  preliminary  chapter,  in  the  compositions  ascribed 
to  any  of  the  so-called  Apostolic  Fathers  of  whom  we  possess 
any  literary  remains  the  authenticity  of  which  can  be  estab- 
lished on  even  probable  grounds.  This  we  regard  as  a  signifi- 
cant fact.  Considering  the  date  of  these  compositions,  so  far 
as  it  can  be  ascertained  with  any  approach  to  certainty,  they 
furnish  conclusive  evidence,  we  think,  against  the  scriptural 
origin  of  the  doctrine  referred  to  ;  and  confirm  our  argument, 
if  it  needed  confirmation,  that  Justin,  in  what  he  teaches  of  the 
Logos,  drew  fi:'om  other  sources,  and  not  from  the  sacred  writ- 
ings, or  from  primitive  Christian  antiquity. 

*  It  may  be  said,  possibly,  that  there  is  a  class  of  passages  in  the  Now  Tes- 
tament which  favors  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers,  that  God  employed  the  Son 
as  his  agent  in  creating  the  universe.  We  refer  to  those  (they  are  very  few) 
in  which  the  following  language,  or  something  like  it,  occurs  :  "  By  whom  also 
he  made  the  worlds,"  or  ages  (Heb.  i.  2).  "  For  by  him  [that  is,  Jesus  as 
an  instrument]  were  all  things  created "  (Col.  i.  16).  These  and  similar 
phrases,  however,  may  refer  to  the  ages,  periods,  or  dispensations ;  and  we 
may  say,  "  By,  or  for,  whom  he  constituted  the  ages  or  dispensations."  That 
is,  they  may  refer  not  to  a  physical,  but  to  a  moral  creation,  or  constitution  of 
things.  (See  Grotins  and  Rosenmiiller  in  he.)  But  whether  we  put  this  or 
any  other  construction  on  the  passages,  they  exhibit  no  traces  of  the  peculiar 
Logos-doctrine  of  the  Fathers. 


PLATONISM  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.  65 

The  inference  just  stated,  we  conceive,  would  be  author- 
ized, were  the  evidence  that  Justin's  sentiments  respecting  the 
Logos  corresponded  in  their  essential  features  with  those  of  the 
later  or  Alexandrian  Platonists  far  less  satisfactory  than  it  is. 
But  this  evidence  is  absolutely  irrefragable.  Look  at  tlie  con^ 
cessions  of  Trinitarians  themselves.  Few  names  stand  higher 
in  the  Romish  Church  than  those  of  Petavius  and  Huet,  or 
Huetius :  the  latter,  Bishop  of  Avranches,  a  leai'ned  man,  and 
the  original  editor  of  Orio;en's  Commentaries  on  the  New 
Testament ;  the  former,  a  Jesuit,  profoundly  versed,  as  his 
writings  prove,  in  a  knowledge  of  Christian  antiquity.  Among 
Protestants,  Cudworth,  author  of  the  "  Intellectual  System," 
stands  preeminent  for  erudition ;  and  Mosheim,  and  many 
will  add  Horsley,  the  antagonist  of  Dr.  Priestley,  have  no 
mean  fame.  Yet  all  these  —  and  we  might  mention  several 
others,  all  belonging  to  the  ranks  of  Trinitarians  —  admit,  in 
substance,  the  charge  of  Platonism  brought  against  the  Fa- 
thers.* Horsley  says  expressly  that  the  Platonizing  Fathers 
were  "  the  Orthodox  of  their  age,"  and  contends  for  "  such  a 
similitude  "  between  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  and  Plato- 
nists "  as  speaks  a  common  origin  "  ;  f  and  Cudworth  has  insti- 
tuted a  very  labored  comparison  to  show  that  "  there  is  no  so 
great  difference,"  as  he  expresses  it,  "  between  the  genuine 
Platonic  Trinity,  rightly  understood,  and  the  Christian." $ 
Brucker,  the  historian  of  Philosophy,  also  a  Trinitarian,  gives 
in  his  learned  work  the  result  of  a  diligent  examination  of 
the  writings  of  Justin,  Tatian,  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  Athe- 
nagoras,  Ireneeus,  Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen, 
and  others.  His  conclusion,  in  which  he  is  fully  borne  out  by 
his  citations,  is,  that  the  taint  of  Platonism  strongly  adhered  to 
these  Fathers ;  and  that,  through  their  writings,  the  whole 
Church,  in  fact,  became  infected.  § 

*  Petav.  Theol.  Dogmata,  t.  ii.  lib.  i.  c.  iii.  et  seqq. ;  Huet.  Origeniana,  lib.  ii. 
c.  i.,  and  c.  ii.  qusest.  2.  See  also  Norton's  Statement,  of  Reasons,  etc.,  pp.  94, 
95,  third  edition,  where  the  language  of  Mosheim  is  quoted. 

t  See  General  Repository  and  Revieiv,  vol.  iii.  pp.  18,  19. 

}  The  whole  subject  is  treated  with  great  learning,  hitell.  Syst.,  b.  i.  ch.  iv. 
p.  557,  etc.,  ed.  Lond.,  1678. 

§  Hist.  Crit.  Phil.  See  especially  t.  iii.  pp.  313-459.  To  the  above  men- 
tioned authorities  we  may  add  that  of  James  Basnage,  also  a  learned  man  and 

5 


66  JUSTIN   MARTYE. 

The  great  points  of  resemblance  between  the  views  of  the 
Platonists  and  those  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  and  of  Justin 
in  particular,  on  the  subject  of  the  Logos,  Son,  or  second  God, 
may  be  stated  in  few  words.  Plato  had  spoken  of  God,  and 
his  reason  or  logos,  embracing  the  patterns  or  archetypes  of 
things  afterwards  formed.  The  latter,  sometimes  called  also 
the  intellect  of  God,  he  pronounces  "  the  divinest  of  all 
things,"  and  admits  it  into  the  number  of  his  primary  princi- 
ples. Whether  he  regarded  it  as  having  a  real  and  proper 
subsistence,  or  as  only  an  attribute  represented  as  a  person  by 
a  sort  of  poetical  fiction,  it  is  of  no  consequence  to  determine. 
It  is  acknowledged  that  he  sometimes  speaks  of  it  in  terms 
that,  literally  understood,  (which,  however,  they  probably 
were  never  intended  to  be,)  would  lead  to  the  supposition 
that  he  considered  it  a  real  being,  distinct  from  the  Supreme 
God,  or  united  with  him  only  as  proceeding  from  the  fountain 
of  his  divinity.  Certain  it  is  that  it  was  so  explained  by  his 
later  followers  of  the  Egyptian  school,  especially  after  they 
had  become  acquainted  with  the  Oriental  doctrine  of  emana- 
tions. 

Of  the  opinions  of  this  school,  Philo,  a  learned  Jew  of 
Alexandria,  who  flourished  soon  after  the  Christian  era,  — 
and  who  has  been  called  the  Jewish  Plato,  from  the  striking 
resemblance  of  his  opinions  to  those  of  the  Athenian  sage,  — 
may  be  regarded  as  a  fair  representative  ;  and  his  writings 
were  the  immediate  source  whence  Justin  and  the  Fathers 
derived  their  doctrine  of  the  Logos.  Fortunately,  these  writ- 
ings, the  bulk  of  them  at  least,  have  been  preserved ;  and 
from  them  we  may  gather  the  sentiments  of  the  Alexandrian 
Platonists  of  his  time.  He  admits  that  there  is  one  Supreme 
God ;  but  supposes  that  there  is  a  second  God,  inferior  to  him, 
and  begotten  of  him,  called  his  reason,  Logos :  the  term,  as 
we  have  seen,  employed  by  Plato  to  designate  his  second 
principle.  To  this  Logos,  or  intelligent  natui'e,  emanating 
from  God,  as  he  considers  it,  he  attributes  all  the  properties 

a  Trinitarian  ;  History  of  the  Jews,  b.  iv.  ch.  iv.  §§  21,  22.  Among  more  recent 
writers,  see  Baumgarten-Crusius,  Lehrhxich  der  christlichen  Dogmengeschichte,  i. 
167,  ff.,  and  Otto,  De  Justini  Martyris  Scriptis  et  Doctrina,  p.  78,  et  seqq. ;  also 
Hagenbacli,  Text-Book,  etc.,  First  Period,  §  19. 


PHILO'S   VIEWS   OP   THE   LOGOS.  67 

of  a  real  being,  and  calls  him  God's  "  first-born  Logos,  the 
most  ancient  angel,  as  it  were  an  archangel  with  many 
names."  *  To  this  "  archangel,  the  most  ancient  Logos,  the 
Father  omnipotent,"  he  says,  "granted  the  preeminent  gift, 
to  stand  on  the  confines  of  both,  and  separate  the  created  from 
the  Creator ;  he  is  continually  a  suppliant  to  the  immortal 
God  in  behalf  of  the  mortal  race,  which  is  exposed  to  afflic- 
tion and  misery  ;  and  is  also  the  ambassador  sent  by  the  ruler 
of  all  to  the  subject  race ;  being  neither  unbegotten  as  God, 
nor  begotten  as  man,  but  occupying  a  middle  place  between 
the  extremes,  being  a  hostage  to  both."f  He  apphes  the  title 
"  God  "  to  him ;  not  using  the  term,  he  is  careful  to  say,  in 
its  highest  sense.  When  used  without  the  article,  as  here,  he 
says,  referring  to  the  passage  in  Genesis  on  which  lie  is  com- 
menting, it  can  be  understood  only  in  its  secondary  sense,  the 
article  being  prefixed  when  the  Supreme  God  is  referred  to. 
What  is  "  here  called  God,"  he  says,  "  is  his  most  ancient 
Logos. "^  At  other  times,  he  speaks  of  him  as  the  image  of 
God;  "the  image  of  God,"  he  says,  "is  his  most  ancient 
Logos  "  ;  §  and,  again,  as  the  Reason  of  God,  embracing,  like 
Plato's  Logos,  the  ideas  or  archetypes  according  to  which  the 
sensible  world  was  framed.  He  calls  God  the  fountain  of  the 
Logos,  and  the  Logos  his  instrument,  or  minister,  in  forming, 
preserving,  and  governiyg  the  world  ;  his  messenger,  and  the 
interpreter  of  his  will  to  man.  [In  a  fragment  preserved  by 
Eusebius,||  Philo  remarks  upon  a  passage  in  Genesis  (ix.  6), 
which  reads,  according  to  the  Septuagint  version,  "  For  in  the 
image  of  God  did  I  make  man."  "  This  divine  oracle,"  he 
says,  "  is  full  of  beauty  and  wisdom.  For  it  was  not  possible 
that  anything  mortal  should  be  formed  after  the  image  of  the 
Most  High,  the  Father  of  the  universe  ;  it  could  only  be 
formed  in  the  image  of  the  second  God,  who  is  his  Logos  (or 
lleason).     It  was  necessary  that  the  stamp  of  reason  on  the 

*  De  Confus.  Ling.,  c.  28 ;   0pp.,  i.  426,  427,  ed.  Mang. 

t  Quis  Rerum  Div.  Hceres,  c.  42 ;  0pp.,  i.  501,  502. 

}  De  Somniis,  lib.  i.  c.  39 ;  0pp.,  i.  655. 

§  De  Confus.  Ling.,  c.  28 ;  0pp.,  i.  427. 

II  [Prcep.  Evang.,  lib.  vii.  c.  13,  or  Philo,  0pp.,  ii.  625.  The  passage  is  taken 
Dy  Eusebius  from  Philo's  Questions  and  Solutions  on  Genesis.  In  the  Armenian 
version  of  this  worli,  published  by  Aucher  in  1826  with  a  Latin  translation, 
t  is  found  in  Senn.  ii.  c.  62.  —  Ed.] 


68  JUSTIN   MARTYR. 

soul  of  man  should  be  impressed  by  the  divine  Logos  ;  *  for 
the  God  above  (or  before,  Trpd)  the  Logos  is  superior  to  every 
rational  nature  ;  and  it  was  not  lawful  that  anything  begotten 
should  be  made  like  Him  who  is  above  (virlp')  the  Logos,  and 
subsists  in  a  form  the  most  excellent  and  peculiar  to  himself."] 
Thus  using  the  term  Logos  in  the  sense  of  Reason,  having 
a  proper  subsistence,  and  distinct  from  God,  though  emanating 
from  the  fountain  of  his  divinity,  Philo  departed  from  the 
usage  of  the  sacred  writers,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  never 
attribute  to  it  this  meaning.  The  sum  of  the  matter  is,  the 
authors  of  the  Septuagint  version  and  the  Platonists  employed 
the  same  term  to  express  totally  different  views  :  the  former 
intending  by  it  simply  a  mode  of  action  in  the  Deity ;  the  lat- 
ter, a  real  being,  his  agent  and  minister  in  executing  his  will. 
Philo  was  the  first,  we  believe,  who  attributed  to  the  Logos 
a  permanent  personal  subsistence  ;  thus  proceeding  one  step 
beyond  Plato :  which  was  the  more  easy  for  him,  in  conse- 
quence of  his  acquaintance  with  the  principles  of  the  Oriental 
philosophy ;  for,  in  the  general  influx  and  confusion  of  opin- 
ions at  that  time  in  Alexandria,  these  entered  into  a  strange 
union  with  Grecian  speculations  and  Judaism. f 

*  e^ei  yap  tov  ?.oyiKbv  tv  av&punov  ibv^y  tvkov  vno  ^siov  "kbyov  xo-P^X^^'"'^'- 
t  "We  do  not  say  that  Philo  is  always  consistent  with  liimself.  He  certainly 
wavers.  The  double  sense  of  the  Greek  term  logos,  meaning  either  "reason" 
or  "  discourse  "  [i.  e.,  the  internal  or  uttered  logos,  or  word),  favored  a  certain 
indistinctness  or  fluctuation  of  thouglit.  The  internal  loijos  Philo  describes  as 
the  "idea  of  ideas,"  or  "archetypal  idea,"  the  "  intelligible  world,"  or  world 
of  ideas,  containing  the  perfect  form  of  all  things  afterwards  made.  The 
"  uttered  "  or  external  logos  is  the  same  hijpostatized,  or  converted  into  a  real 
person.  That  he  should  sometimes  blend  or  confound  the  two  senses,  need 
not  surprise  us.  On  the  Logos  as  hypostatized  by  Philo,  see  Norton's  State- 
merit  of  Reasons,  pp.  314-316,  and  p.  332,  etc.,  3d  edit. ;  Semisch,  Justin  Martyr, 
ii.  173-177 ;  Hagenbach,  Text-Book,  etc.,  First  Per.,  §  40.  [See  also  Gross- 
mann,  Qucestiones  Philonecv,  Partic.  1,  2,  (1829,)  who  gives  all  the  passages  in 
which  the  term  T^yo^  occurs  in  Philo  ;  Gfrorer,  Philo  und  die  jtldisch-alexandri- 
nisclie  Theosophie,  (1831,)  i.  168,  ff.,  esp.  243,  ff. ;  Liicke,  Comm.  iiber  das  Evang. 
des  Johannes,  3e  Aufl.  (1840),  i.  249,  ff.,  translated  by  Dr.  Noyes  in  the  Christ. 
Examiner  for  March  and'  May,  1849  ;  Dorner,  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi, 
(1845,)  i.  22,  ff.,  Eng.  trans,  i.  19,  etc.,  also  transl.  by  Prof.  Stuart  in  the 
Biblioth.  Sacra  for  Oct.  1850 ;  Keferstein,  Philo's  Lehre  von  den  gottlichen  Mittel- 
wesen  (1846) ;  Niedner,  De  Subsislentid  tu  i?etw  /loycj  apud  Philonem  Judcenm  et 
Joannem  Apostoluin  trtbutd,  in  his  Zeitschrift  flir  die  hist.  TheoL,  1849,  Heft  3 ; 
Jowett's  Essay  on  St.  Paul  and  Philo,  in  his  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  etc.,  vol.  i. ; 
Ritter's  History  of  Ancient  Philosophy,  iv.  426,  etc.,  Eng.  trans. ;  Zeller's  Phil- 
osophie  der  Gricchen,  iii  594,  ff.  — Ed.] 


BORROWED    HIS    VIEWS    PROM    PHILO.  69 

The  subject  might  be  further  illustrated  by  an  appeal  to 
later  writers  of  the  same  school,  as  Plotinus  and  others ;  but 
it  is  unnecessary.  Justin  and  the  subsequent  Fathers,  we 
know,  read  Philo  ;  and  their  thoughts  and  expressions  often 
exhibit  a  remarkable  coincidence  with  his.  Indeed,  so  deeply 
are  their  writings  imbued  with  his  sentiments  and  spirit,  that 
without  him,  as  Mosheim  observes,  they  would  often  be  "  al- 
together unintelligible."  No  one  who  compares  their  senti- 
ments in  reference  to  the  Logos  with  those  entertained  and 
expressed  by  him,  can  doubt,  we  think,  that  they  must  have 
been  derived  from  a  common  source ;  and  this  could  be  no 
other  than  the  doctrines  of  Plato,  as  explained  by  his  later 
followei's  of  the  Alexandrian  School.  Justin,  as  related  in 
a  former  chapter,  expressly  informs  us  that  he  became  ac- 
quainted with  these  doctrines  before  his  conversion  to  Chris- 
tianity, and  took  incredible  delight  in  them.  The  process  by 
which  he  ingrafted  them  on  the  original  truths  of  the  gospel, 
without  any  premeditated  design  of  corruption,  which  we  do 
not  impute  to  him,  it  is  not  difficult  to  explain.* 

*  Some  attempts,  we  know,  have  been  made  to  soften  the  charge  of  Plato- 
nism  against  the  Fatliers  ;  and  Semisch,  already  alluded  to  in  this  connection, 
has  a  labored  argument  on  the  subject.  Yet,  however,  he  grants  to  the  "Alex- 
andrian riiilonic  theosophy  an  essential  share  in  the  formation  of  Justin's 
doctrine  of  tlie  Logos."  Whether  the  source  of  the  influence  thus  acknowl- 
edged be  denominated  Platonism  or  "heathen  culture,"  in  which,  especially 
in  Alex.andria,  we  know  that  Platonism  ruled,  is  of  little  consequence.  It  is 
difficult  to  separate  the  "Alexandrian  Philonic  theosophy,"  or  "  Jewish  Alex- 
andrianism,"  from  the  new  Platonism,  as  it  developed  itself  in  the  Alexandrian 
schools.     All  admit  that  Philo  "  Platonized." 

Semisch  states  very  correctly,  that  "  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  especially 
in  the  form  [in  which]  it  was  held  by  Philo,  served  as  a  starting-point  and 
direction  to  the  speculative  inquiries  of  the  most  ancient  Fathers  relative  to 
the  person  of  Christ."  After  this,  is  he  quite  consistent  in  affirming  that 
Justin,  who  certainly  was  speculative  enough,  derived  the  doctrine  directly 
from  the  Scriptures  1  But  to  say  nothing  of  his  inconsistency',  seeming,  at 
least,  how  happens  it,  one  is  tempted  to  ask,  if  Justin  drew  his  knowledge 
of  the  Logos  from  the  Scriptures,  that  the  so-called  Apostolic  Fathers,  who 
stood  so  much  nearer  the  fountain,  (or  whoever  wrote  what  passes  under  their 
names,)  were  ignorant  of  it,  as  he  admits  they  were,  saying  that  "every  such 
application  of  the  idea  of  the  Logos  was  foreign  to  their  minds  ''  ?  Was  Jus- 
Jin's  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  as  Semisch  says,  the  "faith  of  the  church  imme- 
diately succeeding  the  Apostles  "  1  How  then  could  the  earliest  writers  after 
the  Apostles  have  been  ignorant  of  it  ?  See  Hagenbach's  Text- Book,  etc.,  First 
Period,  §  19  ;  Semisch,  Justin  Martyr,  ii.  177,  178,  198,  200. 


70  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

The  Inferiority  of  the  Son  uniformly  asserted  by  the  Ante-Nicenb 
Fathers.  —  Concessions  of  Trinitarians.  —  The  Father  and  Son 
not  numerically  One,  nor  Equal.  —  Proofs  from  Justin.  —  The 
Son  not  an  Object  of  Direct  Address  in  Prayer.  —  Sum  of  the 
Argument.  —  Disingenuous  Use  made  of  Two  Passages  from  Jus- 
tin.—  His  Views  op  the  Spirit.  —  Jcstin's  Notice  of  the  Human- 
itarians OF  HIS  Day.  —  Bishop  Watson  did  not  deem  the  Peeex- 
iSTENCE  OF  Christ  necessary  to  the  Accomplishment  of  his  Mis- 
sion. 

That  the  inferiority  of  the  Son  was  generally,  if  not  uni- 
formly, asserted  by  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers,  has  been  admit- 
ted by  several  learned  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
Cudworth  fully  and  expressly  asserts  it*  of  "the  generality 
of  the  Christian  doctors  for  the  first  three  hundred  years  after 
the  Apostles'  times  "  ;  and  Brucker,  Petavius,  and  Huetius, 
already  referred  to,  and  we  may  add  Le  Clerc,  entertained 
substantially  the  same  opinion.  That  the  opinion  is  well 
founded,  has  been  incontestably  proved,  we  conceive,  by 
Whiston,  author  of  "  Primitive  Christianity  Revived  "  ;  f  and 
by  Whitby,  in  a  work  which  never  has  been,  and,  we  hazard 
nothing  in  saying,  never  can  be,  refuted. J  That  they  viewed 
the  Son  as  distinct  from  the  Father  is  evident  from  the  cir- 
cumstance that  they  plainly  assert  his  inferiority.  Besides, 
they  often  either  directly  affirm  it,  or  use  language  which 
necessarily  implies  it.§      They  considered  him   distinct    and 

*  Intellectual  System,  b.  i.  ch.  iv.  p.  595. 

t  See  vol.  iv. 

t  Dhquisitiones  Modestce  in  CI.  Bitlli  Defensionem  Fidei  Nicena. 

§  III  fact,  the  Fathers  of  the  council  of  Nice,  and  their  predecessors,  never 
thought  of  asserting  that  the  Son  and  the  Fatlier  were  nwnerically  one.  This 
was  a  refinement  of  later  times.  Tiie  term  "  consubstaiitial,"  as  used  by 
tliese  Fathers  and  by  the  Platonists,  the  learned  well  know,  implied,  not  a 
numerical,,  but  only  a  specific  identity.  By  saying  that  two  beings  were  con- 
Bubstantial,  as  that  tiie  Son  was  consubstantial  with  the  Fatlier,  they  only 
Tieant  to  affirm  that  they  partook  of  the  same  common  or  specific  nature,  just 


THE   SON   DISTINCT    FROM   GOD.  71 

subordinate.  This  appears,  as  it  regards  Justin,  from  the 
passages  ah'eady  adduced,  in  the  account  given  of  his  views 
of  the  Logos  a  few  pages  back.  We  shall  now  exhibit  further 
evidence  of  the  fact. 

First,  we  would  observe  that  Justin  expressly  contends  for 
two  Gods  and  two  Lords,  against  what  he  considered  the 
cavils  of  the  Jews.  He  speaks  of  the  "  Lord  in  heaven  "  as 
"  Lord  of  that  Lord  who  appeared  on  earth,"  and  the  source 
of  all  his  power,  titles,  and  dominion  ;  "  the  cause  of  his  being 
powerful  and  Lord  and  God."*  The  expression,  "  The  Lord 
rained  fire  from  the  Lord  out  of  heaven  upon  Sodom,"  he 
contends,  shows  that  they  are  really  two  in  number.  The 
same  is  implied,  he  says,  in  the  words,  "Adam  has  become  as 
one  of  us  "  :  words,  he  maintains,  which  are  not  to  be  regarded 
as  a  mere  figure  of  speech,  as  sophists  contend.  He  then 
quotes  the  passage  from  Proverbs  already  repeatedly  referred 
to ;  and  adds,  whence  "  you  may  understand,  if  you  will  at- 
tend, that  this  progeny  of  the  Father  was  begotten  of  him 
before  all  creatures ;  and  that  which  is  begotten,  as  all  know, 
is  different  in  number  from  tiiat  which  begets  it "  ;  that  is, 
they  constitute  two  beings  numerically  distinct. f  Again : 
"  There  is  another  God  and  Lord  under  the  Creator  of  the 
universe,  who  is  also  called  Angel,  because  he  announces  to 
men  what  the   Creator  of  the  universe  —  above  whom  there 

is  no  other  God  —  wishes  to  declare He  who  is  said  to 

have  appeared  to  Abraham,  to  Jacob,  and  to  Moses,  and  is 
called  God,  is  other  than  the  God  who  made  all  things.  1 
say,  in  number,  but  not  in  will ;  for  he  never  did  anything 
except  what  the  Creator  of  the  universe — over  whom  there 
is  no  other  God —  willed  him  to  do  and  say."  J  On  this  point, 
the  language  of  Justin  is  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood.  Try- 
pho  had  challenged  him  to  show  that  there  is  mentioned  in 
the  Old  Testament  any  other  Lord  and  God  except  the  Su- 
preme. In  reply,  he  maintains  that  there  is  another  often 
spoken   of,  who  appeared   to  the   patriarchs,  —  the   Son   and 

us  two  individual  men  partake  of  a  common  nature,  — that  is,  a  human  na- 
ture,—  though  they  constitute  two  distinct  beings,  having  a  separate  will  and 
lonsciousness. 

*  Dial.,  p.  222;  Thirlby,  pp.  413,  414;  Otto,  c.  129.  t  Ibid. 

I  Dial.,  0.  66.     See  also  cc.  57-62,  Otto. 


72  JUSTIN   MARTYR. 

minister  of  the  Supreme ;  voluntarily  begotten  of  him,  not 
from  eternity,  —  this  he  nowhei-e  asserts,  —  but  before  the 
creation  of  the  world,  that  he  might  be  employed  as  his  agent 
in  its  production  and  afterwards  in  executing  his  commands  : 
for  all  the  Old  Testament  theophanies,  according  to  Justin, 
belong  to  the  Logos,  or  Christ ;  not  to  the  Supreme  God, 
whose  visible  personal  appearance  upon  earth  he  regarded  as 
impossible  and  absurd.* 

Again :  Justin  frequently  applies  to  the  Son  such  phrases 
as  these,  —  ''next  in  rank,"  or  "next  after"  God;  as  the 
Logos,  or  Son,  is  "  the  first  power  after  God  the  Father  and 
sovereign  Lord  of  all."f  Again  :  "  We  reverence  him  next 
after  God."  And  he  sometimes  states  the  ground  of  this  rev- 
erence ;  which  is,  not  because  he  is  of  one  essence  with  the 
Father,  but  "  because  for  our  sakes  he  became  man,  and  par- 
took of  our  infirmities,  that  through  him  we  might  be  healed."  J 
Such  phrases,  implying  inferiority,  we  say,  occur,  not  once, 
but  repeatedly ;  and  their  import  cannot  be  mistaken. 

Of  the  derivation  of  the  Son  from  the  Supreme  God,  and 
his  subjection  to  him  as  the  minister  of  his  will,  of  his  names 
and  offices,  and  especially  of  his  title  to  be  called  God  in  an 
inferior  sense  of  the  term,  the  following  account  is  given.  He 
is  God,  because  he  is  the  first-born  of  every  creature  ;  §  the  "  Lord 
of  hosts,  by  the  ivill  of  the  Father  giving  him  the  dominion  "  ; 
and,  "according  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  God."||  Again: 
he  "  received  of  the  Father,  that  he  should  be  King  and  Christ 
and  Priest  and  Angel,  and  whatever  other  such  things  "  (that 
is,  titles,  rank,  and  offices)  "  he  has  and  had."^  Again :  he 
"  came  according  to  the  power  of  the  Omnipotent  Father  given 
to  him."  **  God  gave  glory  to  Christ  alone,  whom  he  consti- 
tuted a  light  to  the  nations.f  f     Again  :  the  Lord  and  Father 

*  Dial.,  c.  127,  Otto, 
t  Apol.  I.,  p.  63  ;  Otto,  c.  32. 

X  Apol.  II.,  p.  97;   Otto,  c.  13.     See  also  Apol.  I.,  cc.  12,  13;  and  DiaL, 
cc.  120,  127. 
§  Dial,  p.  218;  Otto,  c.  125. 
II  Rid.,  pp.  181,  182,  221 ;  Otto,  cc.  85,  127. 
1  Ihid.,  p.  184 ;  Thirlby,  p.  327  ;  Otto,  c.  86. 
**  Diid.,  p.  230  ;  Thirlby,  p.  432 ;  Otto,  c.  189 
tt  Dial,  pp.  162.  163;  Otto,  c.  65. 


THE  SON  NOT  ADDRESSED  IN  PRAYER.  73 

of  the  universe  is  represented  as  raising  him  from  the  earth, 
and  placing  him  at  his  right  hand.*  He  expressed  rehance 
on  God,  says  Justin,  for  support  and  safety ;  nor,  he  continues, 
does  he  profess  to  do  anything  of  his  own  will  or  power.  He 
refused  to  be  called  "good";  replying,  "One  is  good,  —  my 
Father,  who  is  in  heaven."  f  Again:  Justin  speaks  of  him  in 
the  following  terms :  "  Who,  since  he  is  the  fast-begotten  Logos 
of  Crod,  is  God^\'1^  that  is,  he  is  God  by  virtue  of  his  birth: 
in  other  words,  he  derived  a  divine  nature  from  God,  just  as 
we  derive  a  human  nature  from  human  parents.  This  was 
what  Justin  and  others  meant  when  they  spoke  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ. 

Justin  uses  another  class  of  expressions,  which  show  that 
the  supremacy  of  the  Father  was  still  preserved  in  his  time. 
He  represents  Christians  as  approaching  the  Father  through 
the  Son.  Through  him,  he  says,  they  offered  thanks  and 
prayers  to  God ;  as  w^e  do  always  beseech  God,  through  Jesus 
Christ,  to  preserve  us  from  the  power  of  demons.  §  In  the 
account  he  gives  of  the  celebration  of  the  Supper,  he  observes 
that  the  person  presiding  "  offers  up  praise  and  glory  to  the 
Father  of  the  universe,  through  the  name  of  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit." II  Again:  "In  all  our  oblations  we  bless  the 
Maker  of  the  universe,  through  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and 
through  the  Holy  Spirit."  ^  From  these  passages,  as  Avell  as 
fi'om  the  whole  strain  of  Justin's  writings,  it  is  evident  that 
the  Son  was  not  regarded  in  his  time  as  an  object  of  direct 
address  in  prayer.  No  expression  occurs,  in  any  part  of  his 
works,  which  affords  the  slightest  ground  for  the  supposition, 
that  supreme  religious  homage  was  ever  rendered  him,  or  that 
his  name  was  ever  directly  invoked  in  the  devotions  of  Chris- 
tians. Prayer  was  as  yet  uniformly  offered  to  God  through 
the  Son,  according  to  the  models  left  in  the  Scriptures. 

We  might  multiply  proofs  ;  but  it  is  unnecessary.  We  have 
adduced  evidence  sufficient,  and  more  than  sufficient,  we  con- 
ceive, to  demonstrate  beyond  the  possibility  of  cavil,  that  Jus- 
tin regarded  the  Son  as  distinct  from  God,  and  inferior  to  him  : 

*  Dial.,  p.  129;  Otto,  c.  32.  t  Dial.,  p.  196  ;  Otto,  c.  101. 

t  Apol.  I.,  p.  81 ;  Otto,  c.  63.  §  Dial.,  p.  128  ;  Otto,  c.  30. 

i;  Apol.  I.,  p.  82 ;  Otto,  c.  65.  T  Apol.  I.,  p.  83  ;  Otto,  e.  67. 


74  JUSTIN    MARTYR. 

distinct,  not,  in  the  modern  sense,  as  forming  one  of  three 
hypostases,*  or  persons,  —  three  "distinctions,"  or  tliree 
"  somewhats,''  —  but  distinct  in  essence  and  nature;  having 
a  real,  substantial,  individual  subsistence,  separate  from  God, 
from  whom  he  derived  all  his  powers  and  titles ;  being  consti- 
tuted under  him,  and  subject  in  all  things  to  his  will.  The 
Father  is  supreme  ;  the  Son  is  subordinate  :  the  Father  is  the 
source  of  power ;  the  Son  the  recipient:  the  Father  originates; 
the  Son,  as  his  minister  or  instrument,  executes.  They  are 
two  in  number,  but  agree,  or  are  one,  in  will ;  the  Father's 
will  always  prevailing  with  the  Son.  They  have,  according 
to  Justin,  no  other  unity. 

Thus,  then,  the  argument  stands.  The  views  which  Justin 
entertained  of  the  Logos,  or  Son,  as  a  rational  power  begotten 
of  God,  and  his  instrument  in  forming  the  world,  distinct 
fi'om  him  and  subordinate,  cannot  be  traced  in  the  Jewish  or 
Christian  Scriptures.  Neither  the  language  of  the  Septuagint 
version,  in  which  the  term  occurs,  nor  the  corresponding 
Hebrew,  was  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  teaching  them.  They 
are  not  alluded  to  by  the  Apostles  and  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  and  their  immediate  successors ;  or,  if  indirectly 
alluded  to  in  one  instance,  it  was  only  that  they  might  be 
condemned.  But  they  occur  in  the  writings  of  the  Alexan- 
drian Platonists,  as  represented  by  Philo,  precisely  or  nearly 
in  the  same  form  in  which  they  appear  in  Justin,  who  is  the 
first  Christian  writer  in  whom  they  are  met  Avith  ;  and  who, 
as  we  learn  from  himself,  was  a  Platonic  philosopher  before 
he  was  a  Christian.  To  us  the  conclusion  appears  irresistible, 
that  he  derived  them  from  the  Platonists,  and,  on  his  conver- 
sion, undesignedly  incorporated  them  with  the  Christian  faith. 
Nor  is  there  anything  surprising  in  all  this.  It  would  have 
been  more  surprising  if  the  Fathers,  educated  as  Heathen 
philosophers,  should  have  taken  along  with  them  none  of  their 
former  sentiments  on  going  over  to  Christianity.  The  human 
mind  does  not  so  easily  part  with   early  and   long-cherished 

*  Ilypostash  was  used  by  the  Fathers,  in  the  time  of  Justin,  as  synonymous 
with  substance.  The  teclinical  sense  in  whicli  it  has  since  been  employed  by 
theologians  was  at  that  time  wholly  unknown.  A  /ti/postalizcd  attribute  is  an 
ittribute  converted  into  a  distinctly  subsisting,  personal  being. 


SUMMARY   OP   THE   ARGUMENT.  75 

opinions  and  prejudices.  Then,  in  the  case  of  the  Fathers,  it 
should  be  considered,  their  fondness  for  allegory  and  mystical 
interpretations,  and  general  want  of  skill  as  critics,  —  a  fault 
common  to  them  with  their  Heathen  contemporaries,  —  de- 
prived them  of  almost  the  only  means  of  correcting  their 
misapprehensions  by  a  careful  and  discriminating  study  of  the 
sacred  writings.* 

The  modern  popular  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  it  will  be  per- 
ceived from  the  foregoing  remarks,  derives  no  support  from 
the  language  of  Justin :  and  this  observation  may  be  extended 
to  all  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers ;  that  is,  to  all  Christian  writers 
for  three  centuries  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  It  is  true,  they 
speak  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  prophetic  or  holy  Spirit,  but 
not  as  co-equal,  not  as  one  numerical  essence,  not  as  Three  in 

*  The  Fathers  appear  to  liave  felt  that  some  apology  was  necessary  for  the 
very  frequent  use  they  made  of  Platonic  sentiments  and  illustrations;  and 
hence  contended,  with  great  pertinacity,  that  Plato  stole  from  Moses.  To 
take  from  him,  therefore,  was,  in  their  view,  no  plunder :  it  was  only  to  re- 
claim pilfered  treasures.  That  he  borrowed  from  the  Hebrews  is  repeatedly 
asserted  by  Justin ;  but  the  notion  did  not  originate  with  him.  It  was  prop- 
agated long  before  by  the  Jews  ;  who,  with  the  exclusive  spirit  which  always 
characterized  them,  claimed  to  be  the  sole  depositaries  of  truth.  The  opinion 
may  be  traced  to  Aristobulus,  a  Jew,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Philo- 
metor,  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  before  Christ ;  and  who,  it  seems, 
dealt  plentifully  in  fables.  Aristobulus  affirms  tiiat  both  Pythagoras  and  Plato 
drew  information  from  the  Jewish  Scriptures  ;  of  whicli,  he  says,  a  Greek 
translation  was  made  before  that  of  the  Seventy.  But  of  this  translation  no 
vestige  remains  ;  nor,  we  believe,  is  any  mention  made  of  it  by  any  other 
writer.  The  autiiors  of  tiie  Septuagint  version  make  no  allusion  to  it;  and 
it  therefore,  probably,  never  existed.  Josephus  asserted,  after  Aristobulus, 
that  Plato  took  Moses  for  his  model ;  and  they  were  followed  by  Justin, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  others,  who  found  tlie  doctrine  exceedingly  con- 
venient, as  it  served,  in  a  measure,  to  justify  what  might  otherwise  have  ap- 
peared an  extravagant  admiration  of  Plato  and  his  opinions.  We  think, 
however,  that  the  evidence  adduced  to  show  that  Plato  derived  assistance 
from  the  compositions  of  Moses  is  very  unsatisfactory.  He  probably  knew 
nothing  either  of  the  Jewish  lawgiver  or  of  his  writings.  The  testimony  of 
the  above-mentioned  authors,  in  this  case,  is  entitled  to  no  credit,  as  it  is 
founded  wholly  on  conjecture.  Then  the  whole  spirit  of  Plato's  theological 
speculations  is  opposed  to  the  Mosaic  doctrines,  as  may  be  seen  from  the 
slight  comparison  above  instituted  with  regard  to  his  Logos,  or  second  Prin- 
ciple, to  which  there  is  nothing  corresponding  in  the  theology  of  Moses. 
This  subject  is  amply  discussed  by  Le  Clerc  (Epist.  Crit.,  vii.  and  viii.).  See 
*lso  some  observations  of  Brucker,  t.  i.  pp.  635-639 ;  and  Basnage's  History 
^  the  Jews,  b.  iv.  ch.  iv. 


76  JUSTIN    MARTYR. 

One,  in  any  sense  now  admitted  by  Trinitarians.  The  very 
reverse  is  the  fact.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  explained 
by  these  Fathers,  was  essentially  different  from  the  modern 
doctrine.  This  we  state  as  a  fact  as  susceptible  of  proof  as 
any  fact  in  the  history  of  liunian  opinions.* 

There  are  two  passages  in  Justin  Martyr,  often  quoted  in 
support  of  the  Trinity,  which  deserve  a  more  particular  notice. 
The  first  is  the  famous  passage  so  often  referred  to  in  the  con- 
ti'oversy  relating  to  the  worship  of  angels.  A  late  learned 
prelate  of  the  English  Church,  in  an  "  Exposition  of  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles,"  quotes  it  thus :  f  "  We  worship  and 
adore  the  Father ;  and  the  Son,  who  came  from  him,  and 
taught  us  these  things  ;  and  the  prophetic  Spirit."  Now,  not 
to  insist  on  the  ambiguity  of  the  words  here  rendered  "  wor- 
ship and  adore,"  —  which,  if  any  regard  is  due  to  the  usage  of 
the  best  writers,  admit  with  equal  propriety  of  being  rendered 
"  reverence  and  honor,"  —  the  passage  above  given  is  in  a 
mutilated  form.  As  it  stands  in  Justin,  it  reads  thus :  "  We 
reverence  and  honor  him  (the  Father)  ;  and  the  Son,  who 
came  from  him,  and  taught  us  these  things  ;  and  the  host  of 
other  good  angels,  who  follow  and  resemble  him ;  and  the 
prophetic  Spirit."^  In  this  form,  as  it  will  be  readily  per- 
ceived, it  may  be  adduced  to  sanction  the  Romish  doctrine  of 
the  adoration  of  angels,  with  as  much  propriety  as  in  support 
of  the  worship  of  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity.  It  is  one 
of  the  passages  usually  appealed  to  by  Catholics  as  evidence  of 
the  antiquity  of  that  doctrine.  If  it  prove  anything,  there- 
fore, it  proves  too  much  for  Protestant  Trinitarians.     This 

*  Martini  states  the  tliree  chief  antl  essential  points  of  difference  between 
Justin's  system  and  that  of  the  Nicene-Athanasian  ortliodoxy  whicli  lias  since 
prevailed,  tlius :  Athanasian  ortliodoxy  maintained  the  everlasting,  begin- 
ningless  generation  of  the  Son  ;  Justin  believed  that  it  took  place  a  little 
before  the  creation  of  the  world.  According  to  the  Athanasian  orthodoxy, 
this  generation  had  its  ground  in  an  inner  necessity  of  the  divine  nature  ; 
iccording  to  Justin,  it  originated  in  an  act  of  God's  free  will.  And  finally, 
in  the  Athanasian  system,  the  Son  was  in  all  respects  equal  with  the  Father, 
and  was  numericallj-  one  and  the  same  being;  Justin  viewed  him  as  subordi- 
oate  and  dependent.      Versnc/i,  etc.,  p.  52. 

t  Elements  of  Christian  T/ieoloQi/,  etc.,  by  George  Tomline,  D.  D.,  F.  R.  S-, 
Lord-Bishop  of  Lincoln ;  vol.  ii.  p.  92,  4th  edit. 

J  Apol.  I.,  p.  47 ;  Thirlby,  p.  11 ;  Otto,  c.  6. 


TWO    PASSAGES   IN   JUSTIN.  77 

objection  can  be  met  only  by  putting  on  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion a  construction  manifestly  forced  and  unnatural.* 

The  other  passage  referred  to  is  not  more  to  the  purpose ; 
in  fact,  it  teaches  a  doctrine  decidedly  opposed  to  the  Trin- 
itarian views  of  the  worship  due  to  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Spirit :  — 

"  That  we  are  not  atheists,  worshipping  as  we  do  the  Maker  of 
this  universe,  .  .  .  offering  up  to  him  prayers  and  thanks,  .  .  .  what 
person  of  sound  mind  will  not  confess  ?  And  that  we  with  reason 
honor  {tljxmjjxv)  Jesus  Christ,  our  teacher  of  these  things,  and  born 

*  This  has  been  sometimes  attempted  with  a  singular  contempt  of  the  laws 
of  interpretation.  We  will  give  the  passage  as  it  stands  in  the  original :  uAA' 
EKelvov  re,  /cot  tov  nap'  avrov  vlbv  h'kdovTa  kuI  dtSa^avra  T/fj-ug  ravra,  /cat  tov  tuv 
uXkuv  STTO/iEvuv  Kol  i^ofioiovfiEvuv  uja&uv  uyyiXuv  arpuTOv,  nvevfiu  ts  to  TrpocpTjTiKbv 
CE^o^eda  /cat  npoaKvvovfiEv.  Now  it  is  maintained  by  some  that  Justin  only 
meant  to  say,  that  Christ  taught  us  those  things  of  which  he  has  been  speak- 
ing, and  also  the  things  relating  to  angels;  by  others,  that  he  taught  us  and 
the  angels  those  things.  Bishop  Bull  contends  for  the  first  of  these  construc- 
tions ;  Grabe  and  Cave,  for  the  second.  Langus  also  gives  the  same,  and 
Thirlby  has  retained  it.  Both  constructions,  however,  do  the  utmost  violence 
to  the  original.  Le  Clerc,  more  honest,  gives  the  sense  very  correctly  as  fol- 
lows :  "Nous  le  servons  et  nous  I'honorons,  et  son  Pils,  qui  est  venu  de  vers 
lui,  et  qui  nous  a  instruits  de  ces  choses,  et  I'Armee  des  autres  bons  Anges, 
qui  I'ont  suivi,  et  qui  lui  ressemblent,  et  I'esprit  i^rophetique  "  (Biblioih.  Anc. 
et  Mod.,  t.  xxiii.  pp.  18,  19).  Whiston  {Prim.  Christ.,  vol.  iv.  p.  66)  gives  a 
similar  version ;  and  Dr.  Priestley  very  accurately  expresses  the  sense  of  the 
passage,  thus  :  "  Him  (God),  and  the  Son  that  came  from  him,  and  the  host 
of  other  good  angels  who  accompany  and  resemble  him,  together  with  the 
prophetic  Spirit,  we  adore  and  venerate"  (Hist.  Corruptions,  part  i.  sect.  7). 
Catholic  writers,  for  assigning  this  sense  to  the  words  of  Justin,  —  the  only 
sense,  we  repeat,  of  which  tliey  admit,  —  were  accused  by  the  earlier  Protes- 
tants of  "  playing  the  Jesuit,"  and  "  knavishly  dealing  with  their  author." 
This  construction  is  sustained  by  Otto  [DeJustini  M.  Scriptis  et  Doclrina,  p.  142, 
et  seqq.).  See  also  his  note  to  the  passage  (Apol.  I.,  c.  6).  A  good  account 
of  the  controversy  is  given  by  Semisch  (vol.  ii.  p.  251,  et  seqq.),  with  ample 
references.  He  supposes  that  Justin  meant  to  say  that  a  certain  reverence 
and  honor  were  to  be  given  to  angels,  without  defining  the  precise  degree. 
This  is  certainly  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  Justin's  writings,  and  follows 
from  the  only  admissible  construction  of  his  language  in  the  passage  under 
notice. 

[The  natural  construction  of  Justin's  language,  which  Dr.  Lamson  adopts, 
is  also  followed  in  the  recent  translation  of  his  writings,  published  in  the  Ox- 
ford Library  of  the  Fathers.  Burton,  in  his  Testimonies  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers 
to  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  (p.  17),  candidly  remarks  respecting  the  diflferent 
constructions  contended  for  by  Bull  and  Grabe,  —  "I  cannot  say  that  they 
are  satisfactory  ;  or  that  I  am  surprised  at  Roman  Catholic  writers  describing 
them  as  forced  and  violent  attempts  to  evade  a  difl&culty."  —  Ed.] 


78  JUSTIN    MARTYE. 

for  this  end,  (who  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  procurator  of 
Judsea  in  the  time  of  Tiberius  Ca3sar,)  receiving  him  as  the  Son  of 
the  true  God,  and  holding  him  in  the  second  place,  and  the  prophetic 
Spirit  in  the  third  rank,  I  shall  show.  Hence  we  are  accused  of 
madness  ;  because,  as  they  say,  we  assign  the  second  place  after  the 
immutable  and  eternal  God,  the  Creator  of  all  things,  to  a  crucided 
man."* 

No  language  could  more  clearly  distinguish  between  the 
"worship"  rendered  to  the  only  true  God,  the  Father,  and 
the  "  honor  "  given  to  the  Son  and  Spirit.  The  readers  of 
Justin  know  in  what  reverence  he  held  the  Avri tings  of  the 
Hebrew  prophets ;  and  to  reverence  these  writings  was  to 
honor  the  "  prophetic  Spirit "  that  spoke  through  them. 
There  is  nothing  here,  that  we  can  see,  of  the  modern 
Trinity.  Equal  worship  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  is 
excluded  in  express  terms. 

We  are  fully  aware  of  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  pre- 
cisely what  Justin's  notions  of  the  Spirit  were.  His  expres- 
sions, taken  literally,  sometimes  conflict  with  each  other. 
Neander,f  Baumgarten-Crusius,J  Otto,§  and  others,  suppose 
him  to  have  made  the  Spirit  one  of  the  angels,  as  the  chief  or 
highest  angel.  "  Without  doubt,"  says  Otto,  "  Justin  placed 
him  in  the  number  of  angels."  That  a  doctrine  so  extraordi- 
nary, and  so  directly  at  vai'iance  with  what  is  taught  clearly, 
as  we  think,  in  other  parts  of  the  writings  of  this  Father, 
however,  should  have  been  held  by  him,  requires,  in  our  view, 
more  evidence  than  is  afforded  by  the  passages  adduced  in 
proof.  If  such  Avas  his  belief,  he  certainly  ascribed  person- 
ality to  the  Spirit,  but  took  it  out  of  the  number  of  the 
Trinity. 

We  will  not  say  that  Justin  did  not  sometimes  attribute 
personality  to  the  Spirit.  He  may  have  done  so  in  the  two 
passages  just  quoted,  possibly  in  some  others.  If  so,  how- 
ever, he  certainly  was  inconsistent  and»  wavering,  as  were 
several  of  the  Fathers,  now  saying  one  thing,  and  now  another 

*  Apol  I.,  p.  61 ;  Otto,  c.  13. 

t  IJIst.  of  the  C/irlst.  ReJit/.  and  Church,  i.  609. 

}  Lehrhuch  dcr  christlirhen  Doc/mmgeschichte,  ii.  1054. 

§  De  Just.  Script,  et  Doct.,  p.  138. 


THE    SPIRIT    AN    INFLUENCE.  T9 

This  might  be.  Semisch,  though  he  believed  that  Justin 
"  adjudged  to  the  Spirit  a  personal  self-subsistent  being  and 
life,"  yet  speaks  of  the  "  constant  vacillation  "  of  the  Fathers 
concerning  it,  the  Scriptures  giving  "  no  precise  explanations 
on  its  nature  and  origin."  "  Something  indistinct  and  vacil- 
lating," he  says,  "naturally  and  unavoidably  pervades  the 
representation  of  the  Fathers  respecting  the  Spirit.  It  is  often 
a  difficult  task  to  bring  their  expressions  into  connection  and 
harmony,  either  with  themselves,  or  still  more  with  their 
Christology,"  * 

But  we  see  not  how  any  one  can  doubt  that,  in  a  vast 
majority  of  instances  in  which  Justin  alludes  to  the  Spirit,  he 
uses  language  which  necessarily  implies  that  he  regarded  it  as 
an  influence  or  mode  of  direct  agency  in  the  Deity.  God, 
according^  to  his  representation,  gave  to  the  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament  severally  one  or  another  gift  of  the  Spirit,  as 
the  "  spirit  of  wisdom  to  Solomon,  the  spirit  of  understanding 
and  counsel  to  Daniel,  of  fortitude  and  piety  to  Moses,"  etc. ; 
but  all  these  were  united  and  finally  rested  in  Jesus,  through 
whom  similar  gifts  were  bestowed  on  the  early  believers. f 
Speaking  of  the  inspiration  of  the  pro])hets,  however,  he  gen- 
erally uses  some  such  phraseology  as  this :  "  The  prophets 
spoke  only  those  things  which  they  saw  and  heard,  being 
filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,"  or  "  a  holy  spirit,"  for  the  article 
is  wanting.  He  had  just  before  said,  J  "  speaking  by  a  divine 
spirit  (6'etw  TTveu/xari),  they  foretold  things  to  come."  Here, 
surely,  is  an  influence,  not  a  person.  As  to  the  phrases 
"honoring  the  Spirit,"  "reverencing  the  Spirit,"  and  others  of 
the  kind,  they  present  no  more  difficulty,  and  no  more  imply 
personality  than  a  multitude  of  expressions  which  we  use 
every  day ;  as  we  "  honor  "  a  person's  courage  or  sincerity  ; 
we  "  do  homacre  "  to  moral  greatness  :  we  "  reverence  "  truth 
and  right ;  we  "  venerate  "  the  martyr  spirit. 

Justin  sometimes  confounds  the  Spirit  with  the  Logos.  The 
"  power  of  God  came  and  overshadowed  the  Virgin,"  he  ob- 
serves, in  allusion  to  Luke  i.  35 ;  and  adds,  that  by  the  Spirit 
or  power  of  God  we  understand  no  other  than  the  Logos,  the 

*  Juslin  Martyr,  etc.,  ii.  207,  208. 
t  Dial.,  cc.  87,  88,  Otto;  also  c.  39. 
t  Dial...  c.  7. 


80  JUSTIN   MARTYR. 

first-begotten  of  God.*  He  sometimes  speaks  of  the  prophets 
as  inspired  by  the  Logos,  and  sometimes  by  the  Spirit.  Oth- 
ers among  the  early  Fathers  confounded  the  Logos  or  Son,  the 
first  production  of  God,  with  the  Spirit ;  a  fact  which  shows 
how  very  imperfectly  the  first  rudiments  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  as  explained  in  subsequent  ages,  had  then  disclosed 
themselves. f 

Justin  nowhere  asserts  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit 
constitute  one  God,  as  became  the  custom  in  later  ages,  after 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  w^as  fully  matured.  Strictly  speak- 
ing, he  was  a  Unitarian,  as  were  the  Orthodox  Fathers  gener- 
ally of  his  time :  that  is,  they  believed  the  Son  to  be  a  being 
really  distinct  fi'om  the  Father,  and  inferior  to  him ;  which  we 
take  to  be  the  very  essence  of  Unitarianism.  With  regard  to 
the  origin  of  the  Son,  their  views  differed  from  thqse  after- 
ward taught  by  Arius.  With  reference  to  his  distinct  and 
subordinate  nature,  however,  they  often  used  expressions  which 
the  Arians  found  no  difficulty  in  retaining.  The  germ  of  the 
Trinity,  however,  was  now  introduced ;  and,  though  the 
features  it  was  afterwards  to  assume  were  not  yet  defined,  it 
from  time  to  time  received  modifications  and  additions,  till, 
about  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  amid  the  storms  and  agi- 
tations of  controversy,  it  was  moulded  into  a  form  somewhat 
resembling  that  which  it  has  since  retained. 

There  was  some  diversity  of  opinion,  in  Justin's  day,  re- 
specting the  nature  of  the  Son.  He  was  himself,  as  we  have 
seen,  a  believer  in  Christ's  preexistence  ;  but  this,  he  tells  us, 
was  not  the  universal  belief  of  his  age.  There  were  some 
who  rejected  it,  being  believers  in  the  simple  humanity  of 
Jesus  ;  but,  though  he  expresses  his  dissent  from  their  opin- 
ions, he  treats  them  with  respect,  and  readily  grants  their 
title  to  the  Christian  name,  character,  and  hopes.  The  whole 
passage  in  which  his  views  on  this  subject  are  contained  is 
worth  quoting,  as  an  instance  of  his  liberality  which  does  him 
great  credit,  and  should  put  the  spirit  of  modern  intolerance 
to  the  blush.  It  proves  that  this  Father,  whatever  his  faults, 
was  no  exclusionist. 

*  Apol.  I.,  p.  64 ;  Otto,  c.  33. 

t  See  Hiigenbach,  Text-Book,  etc.,  First  Per.,  §  44 ;  Neander,  Hist,  of  Chris 
Han  Dogmas,  i.  172,  etc. 


THE   HUMANITARIANS   OF    HIS   DAY.  8l 

To  his  views  of  Christ's  preexistence,  Trypho,  who  may- 
be regarded  as  uttering  the  sentiments  of  the  Jews  of  his  and 
of  all  times,  objects  that  they  appear  strange,  and  incapable  of 
proof:  "  For  as  to  your  assertion,  that  this  Christ  preexisted, 
being  God,  before  the  ages,  and  then  submitted  to  be  born  and 
made  man,  and  was  not  a  man  born  of  man,  to  me,"  he  says, 
"it  appears  not  only  paradoxical,  but  foolish."  Justin  replies, 
"  I  know  that  this  assertion  appears  paradoxical,  especially  to 
you  Jews.  Nevertheless,  Trypho,  the  proof  that  he  is  the 
Christ  of  God  stands,  if  I  cannot  show  that  he  preexisted,  the 
Son  of  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  (so)  being  God ;  and  that 
he  was  born  of  the  Virgin  as  man.  But,  since  it  is  fully  dem- 
onstrated that  he  is  the  Christ  of  God,  whatever  be  his  nature, 
even  if  I  do  not  succeed  in  proving  that  he  preexisted,  and, 
according  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  submitted  to  be  born  man, 
of  like  passions  with  us,  having  flesh,  in  this  latter  respect 
only  would  it  be  just  to  say  that  I  have  erred.  You  would 
still  not  be  authorized  to  deny  that  he  is  the  Christ,  although 
it  should  appear  that  he  was  a  man,  born  of  human  parents, 
and  it  should  be  shown  that  he  became  Christ  by  election  :  for 
there  are  some  of  our  race  *  who  acknowledge  that  he  is  the 

*  "  Some  of  our  race,"  yevoc,  that  is,  as  has  been  generally  supposed, 
Christians.  Otto,  Justin's  editor,  supposes  that  tlie  Ebionite  Christians  are 
referred  to.  Martini  says,  tlie  "Palestinian  Jewish  Christians."  Bishop 
Kaye  says,  "  Christians  as  opposed  to  Jews."  Semisch  {Justin  Marfi/r,  ii. 
137)  thinks  the  writer  had  in  view  the  "  Ebionitish  Jewish  Christians,"  with 
■whom,  from  the  place  of  his  early  residence,  he  must  have  been  well  ac- 
quainted, and  whom  he  treats  witli  peculiar  tenderness,  saying  simply,  "  I  do 
not  agree  with  them,"  while  he  is  very  severe  in  his  condemnation  of  the 
Gnostics.  As  to  the  secondary  meaning  of  the  word  translated  "  race,"  that 
is,  as  referring  not  to  relationship  by  birth,  or  natural  descent,  but  as  desig- 
nating a  class  of  men,  or  men  holding  a  certain  set  of  opinions,  or  agreeing  in 
certain  habits  of  life,  it  is  not  witliout  precedent  in  classical  usage.  Thus 
Plato  has  the  "race  of  philosophers."  In  Latin,  too,  we  have  the  "genus 
vatum  "  of  Horace.     Philo  speaks  of  the  "  Therapeutic  race." 

Dr.  Priestley,  however,  {Hist,  of  Earlt/  Opinions,  b.  iii.  eh.  14,)  thinks  that 
"not  Christians  in  general,  but  Gentile  Christians  iji  particular,"  are  meant 
in  this  passage  of  Justin.  The  Rev.  F.  Huidekoper,  who  has  given  much 
time  and  thought  to  subjects  connected  with  Christian  antiquity,  is  also  very 
confident  that  the  writer  had  in  view  Gentile  Christians,  —  a  result  to  which 
he  arrived,  it  seems,  before  being  aware  that  Dr.  Priestley  had  adopted  the 
same  conclusion.  His  reasons  we  give  in  his  own  words,  Dr.  Priestley  not 
having  argued  the  point  at  length. 

"  1.  In  determining  what  Justin  meant  by  the  word  yivo^,  its  customary 

6 


82  JUSTIN    MARTYR. 

Christ,  but  affirm  that  he  was  a  man,  born  in  the  ordinary 
way :    from   wliom    I   dissent."      To    this,    Trypho    replies, 

classical  use  is  at  least  worth  noting.  This  fixvors  the  idea  that  he  meant  to 
distinguish  two  races  of  men  rather  than  two  classes  of  thinkers.  2.  Its  sig- 
nification among  Christians  in  tiie  second  century  is  still  more  important. 
This  may  be  ascertained  from  Tertullian's  use,  at  the  close  of  that  century, 
{Ad  Nationcs,  lib.  i.  cc.  7,  8,)  of  the  term  'third  race/  as  applied  to  Chris- 
tians, an  allusion  which  implies  on  the  part  of  liis  readers  and  others  a  well- 
settled  prior  recognition  of  two  races,  —  unquestionably  the  Jews  and  the 
Gentiles,  —  without  which  the  allusion  would  have  been  unintelligible.  3.  The 
Dialogue  professes  to  have  taken  place  between  Justin,  a  born  Gentile, 
and  Trypho,  a  born  Jew.  Between  two  such  speakers,  I  should  regard  that 
interpretation  as  much  the  most  probable  which  makes  the  word  refer  to  Jews 
and  Gentiles.  4.  This  interpretation  is,  in  my  opinion,  greatly  strengthened 
by  the  following  antithesis  in  the  context.  In  the  beginning  of  the  section 
Trypho  is  made  to  say,  '  The  statement  that  this  Christ  preexisted  as  a  divine 
being  ....  and  that  he  is  not  a  man  of  human  parentage,  appears  to  me 
not  only  paradoxical  but  foolish.'  To  which  Justin  answers,  '  I  know  that 
this  doctrine  seems  paradoxical,  and  especially  to  those  of  your  race  .... 
and  indeed  there  are  some  ....  from  our  race  who  confess  him  to  be 
Christ,  but  deem  him  a  man  of  human  parentage  '  (Dial.,  c.  48).  In  the  first 
clause  of  the  above  antithesis,  I  cannot  imagine  that  Justin  should  intend  to 
contrast  the  Jews  and  the  Christians,  since  his  meaning  would  then  have 
merely  been,  '  The  doctrine  of  Christ's  divine  nature  and  miraculous  birth  is 
especially  difficult  to  you  before  conversion  to  Christianity'.'  The  only  nat- 
ural meaning  to  mj'  mind  is,  (since  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile,  before  their  con- 
version to  Christianity,  can  have  accepted  the  doctrines  in  question,)  that, 
after  conversion,  persons  of  Jewish  descent  accepted  these  two  views  with 
more  difficulty  than  did  those  of  Gentile  origin.  If  this  be  the  true  render- 
ing of  tlie  first  clause,  then  the  obvious  antithesis  requires  that  we  should 
understand  by  the  term  '  our  race '  in  the  second  clause  persons  of  Gentile 
descent,  that  is,  Gentile  Christians.  5.  The  foregoing  interpretation  is  still 
further  corroborated  by  its  accordance  with  what  we  learn  from  Origen, 
namely,  that  no  Jewish  Christians  believed  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  and 
that  his  miraculous  birth  was  less  readily  believed  among  Jewish  than  among 
Gentile  Christians.  See  quotation  in  Christ's  Mission  to  the  Under-wodd,  note 
on  p.  151,  from  Origen  on  Matt.  xvi.  12;  0pp.,  iii.  733  A,  734  A.  6.  There 
is  yet  another  consideration  with  which  I  was  unwilling  to  complicate  the 
argument  under  No.  2.  It  is  this  :  Tertullian's  language  fairly  implies  that 
the  term  '  third  race '  was  one  of  scorn  and  derision,  applied  to  the  Christians 
as  nondescripts,  neither  Jews  nor  Gentiles.  He  asks, '  Have  Christians  a  differ- 
ent kind  of  teeth,  or  a  different  opening  for  their  jaws  1  .  .  .  .  We  are  called 
a  third  race,  —  dog-tailed  perhaps,  or  shadow-footed  [alluding  to  a  fabulous 
Libyan  race  who  could  cover  themselves  by  the  shadow  of  their  feet],  or  it 
may  be  Antipodes  from  below  the  earth  ....  Ridiculous  madness  .... 
But  we  are  deemed  a  third  race  because  of  our  [alleged]  superstition,  not  be- 
cause of  our  national  origin  as  Homans  or  Jews.'  (Ad  Nationes,  lib.  i.  cc.  7, 
8,  p.  53  A,  1).)  Elsewhere,  Tertullian  blames  the  Gnostics  for  their  willing- 
ness to  find  a  place  in  heaven,  not  only  for  the  persecuting  Jews,  but  for  the 


THE    PREEXISTENCE    OF    CHRIST.  83 

'  Those  who  suppose  him  to  have  been  a  man,  and  affirm  that 
he  was  anointed,  and  became  Christ  by  election,  appear  to  me 
to  hold  an  opinion  much  more  probable  than  that  you  have 
expressed ;  for  we  all  believe  that  Christ  will  be  a  man  born 
of  human  pai'entt,  and  that,  when  he  com.es,  he  will  be 
anointed  by  Elias."  * 

The  late  Bishop  Watson  agreed  with  Justin  in  the  opinion 
that  Christ's  preexistence  was  not  necessary  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  his  mission.  "  His  authority  as  a  teacher  is  the  same," 
he  says,  "  whether  you  suppose  him  to  have  been  the  eternal 
God,  or  a  being  inferior  to  him  and  commissioned  by  him." 
Then,  speaking  of  our  redemption,  he  says,  "  I  see  no  diffi- 
culty in  admitting  that  the  death  of  an  angel  or  of  a  mere 
man  might  have  been  the  price  which  God  fixed  upon."  He 
rejects  the  supposition,  that,  on  the  Socinian  hypothesis  (that 
is,  that  Christ  was  a  man,  who  had  no  existence  before  he  Avas 
born  of  Mary),  "  an  atonement  could  not  have  been  made  for 
the  sins  of  mankind  by  the  death  of  Jesus."  So  of  the  Arian 
hypothesis :  "  There  is  no  reason,"  he  says,  "  for  thinking  that 
the  death  of  such  a  being"  (that  is,  as  the  Arians  suppose 
Christ  to  have  been)  "  might  not  have  made  atonement  for 
the  sins  ^^  mankind.  All  depends  on  the  appointment  of  God  ; 
and  if,  instead  of  the  death  of  a  superangelic  or  of  an  angelic 
or  a  human  being,  God  had  fixed  on  any  other  instrument  as 
a  medium  of  restoring  man  to  immortality,  it  would  have  been 

'  Gentile  populaces  '  witii  their  circus,  where  they  may  cry  out,  '  How  long  to 
the  [exhibition  of  the]  third  race.'  (Scurpiace,  c.  10,  p.  628  B.)  If  Ter.tullian 
revolted  at,  and  defended  the  Christians  from  the  charge  of  being  a  distinct 
race,  it  is  at  least  unlikely  that  the  Christians  should  favor  a  use  of  language 
based  on  that  distinction.  In  the  absence  of  all  evidence  to  that  effect,  I 
would  not  attribute  to  Justin  a  meaning  which  implied  it. 

"  7.  Besides  the  foregoing  positive,  there  is  one  negative  reason  which  Aveighs 
with  me  for  supposing  that  Justin  meant,  not  Christians  generally,  but  Chris- 
tians of  Gentile  descent.  It  is  this.  Though  I  find  opinions  —  some  of  them 
entitled  to  respect  —  in  favor  of  the  former  interpretation,  yet  I  have  looked 
fruitlessly  for  evidence  of  its  probable  correctness.  Had  such  evidence  ex- 
isted, I  think  that  it  would  have  been  adduced.  In  the  apparent  absence, 
therefore,  of  evidence  favoring,  and  the  certain  presence  of  evidence  against 
the  metaphorical  translation  of  yhog,  I  prefer  to  adopt  its  usual  and  well-set- 
lied  meaning  as  designating  a  different  descent,  not  a  difference  of  opinions." 

The  length  to  which  this  note  has  already  extended  precludes  further  com- 
ment.    We  leave  the  subject  to  the  judgment  of  the  learned. 

*  Dial.,  pp.  143,  145;  Thirlby,  pp.  233-235;  Otto,  cc.  48,49. 


84  JUSTIN    MARTYR. 

highly  improper  in  us  to  have  quarrelled  with  the  mean  which 
his  goodness  had  appointed,  merely  because  we  could  not  see 
how  it  was  fitted  to  attain  the  end."  * 

Justin's  distinction  was  an  intelligible  one.  The  question 
whether  Jesus  were  tlie  Messiah,  the  Christ  of  God,  or  not, 
did  not  involve  the  question  of  his  nature.  He  might  be  pre- 
existent  or  not ;  yet  he  might  be  the  Christ  of  God,  exalted 
by  him  to  be  "a  Prince  and  a  Saviour."  Justin  believed  him 
to  have  been  preexistent ;  yet  he  freely  accords  to  the  believ- 
ers in  his  simple  humanity  the  name  of  Christians.  For  them 
there  was  a  Christ.  Whetlier  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff  had  ever 
read  Justin  or  not,  we  cannot  say ;  but  he  was  clear-headed 
and  reverential  enough  to  perceive  that  the  question  of  Christ's 
nature  or  of  his  preexistence  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion of  his  sufficiency  as  a  Saviour,  but  all  depended  on  God's 
appointment.  Whatever  instrument  God  chose  and  appointed, 
must,  from  the  very  fact  that  he  had  so  chosen  and  appointed 
it,  be  adequate  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  designed ;  and 
it  would  be  arrogant  in  man  to  question  its  sufficiency.  So 
the  bishop  reasoned ;  and  so  Justin  Martyr  could  say,  that, 
admitting  his  inability  to  prove  Christ's  preexistence,  it  did 
not  follow  that  he  was  not  the  Christ  of  God.  That  fact  he 
considered  as  established  by  irrefragable  proofs ;  and  that  he 
regarded  as  the  all-important  and  only  essential  flxct. 

With  regard  to  the  great  points,  which,  since  the  days  of 
;\.iigustine,  have  divided  the  Christian  world,  usually  called 
:he  Calvinistic  points,  Justin  held  moderate  and  rational 
views.  He  nowhere  states  his  opinion  of  the  precise  effect  of 
Adam's  fall,  though  he  is  decidedly  opposed  to  the  doctrines 
of  hereditary  depravity,  original  sin,  and  the  inability  of  man 
to  do  the  will  of  God,  as  explained  in  later  times.  He  evi- 
dently knew  nothing  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his 
posterity.!  He  is  a  firm  advocate  for  human  freedom,  and  the 
capacity  of  man  for  virtue  or  vice.  Man  has  power,  he  main- 
tains, to  choose  the  good  and  refuse  the  evil,  —  power  to  "  do 
well."     He  earnestly  combats  the  doctrine  of  destiny  or  fate. 

*  Charges  delivered  in  1784  and  1795. 

\  "  Original  sin  and  the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt,"  says  Hagenbach. 
"  are  conceptions  foreign  to  him."  -  -  Text-Book,  etc.,  First  Per.,  §  63. 


HIS   OPINIONS   ANTI-CALVINISTIC.  85 

All  will  be  rewarded  or  punished,  he  says,  according  to  their 
merits.  If  character  and  actions  were  fixed,  he  argues,  there 
could  be  no  such  thing  as  virtue  and  vice ;  for  these  suppose 
freedom,  or  the  ability  to  choose  and  follow  the  one  and  avoid 
the  other.  Men,  he  adds,  would  not  be  proper  subjects  of 
reward  and  punishment,  if  they  were  good  and  evil  by  birth, 
not  by  choice ;  for  no  one  is  accountable  for  the  character  he 
brings  into  the  world  with  him.*  This,  certainly,  does  not 
look  like  the  doctrine  of  predestination ;  and  we  are  author- 
ized to  assert,  with  Bishop  Kaye,  that,  "if  Justin  held  the 
doctrine  of  predestination  at  all,  it  must  have  been  in  the 
Arminian  sense." 

Of  the  effects  of  Christ's  death,  and  of  justification,  he 
usually  speaks  in  general  and  figurative  terms,  much  resem- 
bling those  which  occur  in  the  sacred  writings,  and  capable 
of  a  similar  construction.  He  cannot,  with  any  propriety,  be 
adduced  as  an  advocate  for  the  modern  popular  doctrine  of 
the  atonement. 

*  Apol  I.,  cc.  28,  43 ;  Apol.  II.,  c.  7 ;  Did.,  c,  88,  Otto. 


86  JUSTIN    MARTTB. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Justin's  Account  of  the  Christian  Rites  as  administered  in  ni8 
Day.  —  Baptism.  —  The  Lord's  Supper.  —  Sunday  Worship.  —  Cal- 
umnies OF  THE  Jews.  —  The  Memory  of  Justin. 

With  the  opinions  of  Justin  we  have  now  done :  but  there 
are  some  facts  he  has  preserved,  relating  to  Christian  worship 
and  rites,  which  every  one  will  desire  to  know ;  as  he  is  the 
earliest  witness  we  possess,  after  the  time  of  the  Apostles, 
from  whom  we  can  learn  anything  authentic  on  the  subject. 
He  describes  Baptism  and  the  Supper  as  administered  in  his 
day,  and  the  Sunday  worship  of  Christians,  with  a  good  degree 
of  minuteness.  This,  we  must  recollect,  was  just  about  a 
century  after  Christ  had  left  the  earth.  One  would  like  to 
look  in  upon  the  religious  assemblies  of  Christians  as  they 
then  existed,  could  the  past,  by  any  possibility,  be  made  to 
stand  before  us.  Justin  speaks  not  from  report  of  what 
Christians  did  in  those  days  :  he  tells  us  what  passed  beneath 
his  own  eye.  His  account  shows  that  the  simplicity  of  Scrip- 
ture forms  was  yet  in  a  great  measure,  though  not  in  all 
respects,  retained.  To  prevent  misconception  and  error,  he 
says  that  he  shall  "  explain  in  what  manner,  being  renovated 
through  Christ,  we  dedicate  ourselves  to  God.  As  many,"  he 
continues,  "  as  believe  and  accept  for  true  those  things  which 
are  taught  by  us,  and  profess  their  determination  to  live  con- 
formably to  them,  are  required,  by  fasting  and  prayer,  to  seek 
of  God  the  remission  of  their  former  sins,  we  fasting  and 
praying  with  them.  They  are  then  led  to  a  place  where 
there  is  water,  and  are  there  regenerated  in  the  same  manner 
as  we  were  regenerated :  for  they  are  laved  in  water,  in  the 
name  of  God,  the  Father  and  Lord  of  all ;  and  of  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  Christ,"  he  adds, 
"  has  said,  that,  except  ye  be  regenerated,  ye  cannot  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  *  This  regeneration,  as  we  have  seen, 
*  ApoL  I.,  p.  79 ;    Otto,  c.  61. 


BAPTISM. THE   LORD'S    SUPPER.  87 

Justin  supposes  takes  place  at  baptism.  He  states  the  neces- 
sity of  it:  which  is,  not  that  men  inherit  a  corrupt  nature 
from  Adam;  "  but  since,"  he  says,  "  we  are  born  without  our 
knowledge  and^  consent,  and  (as  Heathen)  educated  in  corrupt 
morals  and  customs,  therefore,  in  order  that  we  may  not 
remain  children  of  necessity  and  ignorance,  but  may  become 
children  of  choice  and  of  knowledge,  and  obtain  by  water 
the  remission  of  sins  before  committed,  the  name  of  the  Father 
and  Lord  of  all  is  pronounced  over  him  who  wishes  to  be 
regenerated,  and  has  repented  of  his  transgressions."  *  This 
washing,  or  baptism,  Justin  says,  was  also  called  "  illumina- 
tion," on  account  of  the  illuminating  power  of  Christ's  doc- 
trines ;  and  the  "  Holy  Spirit "  was  that  "  which  foretold  all 
things  relating  to  Jesus."  Justin's  formula  of  baptism  was 
virtually,  and  as  he  understood  it,  "  in  the  name  of  the  one 
God  and  Father  of  all ;  and  of  the  Son,  his  instrument,  and 
the  revealer  of  his  will  to  man ;  and  of  the  prophetic  Spirit, 
which  foretold  his  coming,"  —  a  Trinity  which  no  old-fash- 
ioned Unitarian  would  feel  any  hesitation  in  acknowledging. 
Regeneration  is  explained  by  what,  as  above  expressed,  we 
become  by  "  choice  and  knowledge,"  —  repentant,  purified, 
and  consecrated  in  heart  and  life  to  God. 

Having  received  baptism,  the  person  was  considered  as 
entitled,  by  virtue  of  it,  to  all  the  privileges  of  a  follower  of 
Christ ;  and  immediately  participated  in  the  rite  of  the  Sup- 
per, there  being  at  that  time  no  distinction  between  the  church 
and  the  congregation  of  believers.  On  the  subject  of  the 
Supper,  the  most  exact  description  which  has  been  transmitted 
to  us  by  Christian  antiquity  is  that  of  Justin.  "  After  we 
have  thus  laved  the  consenting  believer,"  he  tells  us,  "  we 
take  him  to  the  place  where  those  who  are  called  brethren 
are  assembled,  there  to  oflPer  up  earnest  prayers  in  common 
for  ourselves  and  for  him  who  has  been  enlightened  (or  bap- 
tized), and  for  all  others  everywhere  ;  that,  having  learned 
the  truth,  we  may  be  deemed  worthy  to  be  found  living  in 
good  works  and  keeping  the  commandments,  that  so  we  may 
obtain  eternal  salvation.  Prayer  ended,  we  salute  each  othei 
with  a  kiss.  Bread  and  a  cup  of  water  and  wine  are  then 
*Apol.  I.,  p.  80;   Otto,  c.  61. 


88  JUSTIN   MARTYR. 

brought  to  him  who  presides  over  the  brethren ;  and  he, 
taking  them,  gives  praise  and  glory  to  the  Father  of  the 
universe,  through  the  name  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  offers  up  many  thanks  that  we  are  counted  worthy  to 
receive  these  gifts.  Prayers  and  thanksgivings  being  ended, 
all  the  people  present  say  amen.  .  .  .  Those  we  call  deacons 
then  distribute  the  bread  and  wine  and  water,  —  over  which 
thanks  have  been  offered,  —  to  be  partaken  of  by  each  of 
those  present;  and  carry  a  portion  to  the  absent."* 

Justin  adds,  "  We  do  not  receive  these  as  common  food  and 
di'ink  "  ;  and  proceeds  to  speak  of  them  as  the  flesh  and  blood 
of  Jesus,  in  terms  which  the  Catholics  regard  as  teaching  the 
doctrine  of  Tran substantiation,  but  to  which  the  Lutheran 
and  Reformed  churches  appeal  with  equal  confidence  as 
clearly  containing  the  elements  of  their  faith  on  the  subject. 
Justin  is  certainly  a  little  obscure  and  mystical.  He  quotes, 
fi'om  the  "  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles,"  called,  he  says,  "  Gos- 
pels," the  expressions,  "  This  is  my  body,"  —  "  This  is  my 
blood " ;  but  his  language  is  too  indefinite  to  authorize  us  to 
say  that  he  understood  them  in  any  other  than  a  metaphorical 
sense, — a  sense  which  the  general  strain  of  his  writings 
would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  he  attributed  to  them.  The 
language  of  the  Scriptures  on  this  subject  is  strongly  figura- 
tive. We  believe  that  Justin  meant  to  be  understood  as 
speaking  in  a  similar  figurative  style.  In  his  Dialogue  with 
Trypho,  he  speaks  of  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  as  sim- 
ply commemorative. f  He  concludes  by  saying,  that,  through 
the  agency  of  wicked  demons,  the  same  elements  were  used 
(by  anticipation)  in  the  ceremony  of  initiation  into  the  mys- 
teries of  Mithras,  in  imitation  of  the  Eucharist,  as  the  Chris- 
tian rite,  he  tells  us,  was  called. 

It  is  worthy  of  observation,  that,  in  the  above  account, 
the  person  who  administers  the  Eucharist  is  called  simply  the 
president  of  the  brethren.  No  mention  is  made  of  bishops, 
priests,  or  presbyters,  in  this  or  in  any  other  part  of  Justin's 
writings.  Further  :  nothing  is  said  of  the  consecration  of  the 
elements,  in  the  technical  sense  in  which  the  term  is  used  by 
Bome  Protestant  churches.  We  are  told  only  that  the  presi- 
*  Apol.  I.,  pp.  82,  83 ;  Otto,  cc.  65,  66.  f  Dial.,  c.  70,  Otto. 


SUNDAY    WORSHIP.  89 

dent  of  the  brethren  offered  thanks  over  the  bread  and  wine, 
and  that  they  were  then  distributed.  Nothing  is  said  of  the 
Supper,  as,  at  this  time,  connected  with  a  common  meal,  ac- 
cording to  the  earher  practice  ;  and  prayers  would  seem  to 
have  been  uttered  without  the  iise  of  forms.  Nor  is  anything 
said  of  the  position  of  the  recipients.  The  term  "altar"  does 
not  occur ;  and  Jurieu  asserts  that  it  is  not  found  in  the  ac- 
knowledged remains  of  any  writer  of  the  second  century.* 

Justin  proceeds  to  give  an  account  of  the  services  of  Sun- 
day ;  not  the  "  Sabbath,"  which  was  not  then  the  Chi'istian 
designation  of  the  day,  though  the  term  was  used  figuratively 
to  express  a  rest,  or  ceasing  from  iniquity,  in  which  sense 
Christians  were  bound  to  keep  a  perpetual  sabbath  ;  the  only 
one,  Justin  tells  Trypho,  which  is  acceptable  to  God.f  "  On 
the  day  called  the  day  of  the  Sun,"  he  says,  "  all,  whether 
in  town  or  country,  assemble  in  one  place  ;  and  the  Memoirs 
by  the  Apostles,  or  Writings  of  the  Prophets,  are  read  as  time 
permits.  When  the  reader  has  finished,  the  person  presiding 
instructs  the  people  in  an  address,  and  exhorts  them  to  imi- 
tate the  excellent  things  they  have  heard.  We  then  all  rise 
together,  and  pray ;  after  which,  as  before  related,  bread  and 
wine  and  water  are  brought "  for  the  Eucharist ;  which,  it 
appears,  was  administered  every  Lord's  Day.  Justin  here 
repeats  the  account  already  given  of  the  rite,  very  nearly  in 
the  same  words.  He  adds,  that  a  collection  was  then  taken, 
to  which  they  who  were  wealthy,  and  chose,  contributed 
according  to  their  ability  and  disposition  ;  and  "  what  is  col- 
lected," he  continues,  "is  deposited  with  the  president,  who 
assists  with  it  orphans  and  widows,  and  those  who,  in  conse- 
quence of  illness  or  any  other  cause,  are  in  want ;  those  who 
are  in  bonds,  and  strangers  sojourning  among  us  ;  and,  in  a 
Avord,  takes  care  of  all  who  have  need.  J 

The  reasons  Justin  assigns  for  assembling  on  Sunday  are, 
simply,  that  this  was  the  "  first  day,  on  which  God,  having 
wrought  a  change  in  darkness  and  matter,  made  the  world ; 
that,  on  the  same  day,  Jesus  Christ,  our  Saviour,  rose  from  the 
dearl ;  for  he  was  crucified  the  day  before  that  of  Saturn  ;  and 

*  Pastoral  Letters,  vi.  t  Dial.,  c.  12,  Otto. 

X  Apot.  I.,  c.  67,  Otto. 


90  JUSTIN    MARTYR. 

the  day  after,  which  is  the  day  of  the  Sun,  he  appeared  again 
to  his  disciples.* 

These  are  matters  of  history,  and,  coming  as  they  do  from 
a  contemporary  writer,  are  of  great  value.  From  Justin  we 
gather  also  various  notices  of  the  character  and  condition  of 
Christians  of  his  day,  and  of  their  persecutors,  —  all  credita- 
ble to  the  disciples  of  the  cross.  The  worst  enemies  of  the 
Christians  were  the  Jews,  more  implacable  than  the  Heathen. 
They  sent  persons,  as  Justin  tells  us,  into  all  parts  of  the  earth, 
to  denounce  them  as  an  atheistic  and  lawless  sect  ;f  they 
cursed  them  in  their  synagogues ;  J  and  the  people  were 
solemnly  charged  to  hold  no  intercourse  with  them,  particu- 
larly to  listen  to  no  exposition  or  defence  of  their  opinions. § 
To  the  calunmies  of  the  Jews,  industriously  propagated  over 
all  parts  of  the  civilized  world,  Justin  attributes  the  odium  to 
which  Christians  were  subjected  on  account  of  their  supposed 
profligacy ;  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  they  were  the 
authors  of  the  foul  slander.  Certainly  it  could  have  origi- 
nated only  in  the  bitterest  hatred  ;  and  this  hatred,  as  thorough 
as  ever  rankled  in  the  human  breast,  they  appear,  according 
to  the  testimony,  not  of  Justin  only,  but  of  Tertullian,  Ori- 
gen,  Eusebius,  and  others,  to  have  cherished. 

Justin  was  not  the  first  martyr,  but  he  was  the  first  great 
writer  and  apologist  for  Christianity,  whose  name  we  meet  on 
the  roll  of  Christian  martyrology.  We  have  given  the  few 
incidents  which  can  be  gathered  from  the  storehouse  of  antiq- 
uity respecting  the  life  and  death  of  this  old  witness  of  the 
faith.  His  intellectual  traits,  and  his  opinions  on  various  sub- 
jects of  theology,  we  learn  from  his  works.  He  was  not,  as 
we  have  seen,  an  exact  or  polished  writer;  he  was  not  critical; 
he  had  not  a  logical  intellect ;  he  wrote  in  a  harsh,  rambling, 
and  somewhat  impulsive  style.  He  was  not  wholly  free  from 
credulity ;  indeed,  had  a  large  measure  of  it ;  and  many  of 
his  opinions  will  now  be  pronounced  extravagant  and  absurd. 
But  so,  in  reality,  will  many  of  those  entertained  at  the  pres- 
ent day  appear  to  a  future  age.     Yet,  whatever  his  defects,  his 

*  ApoL  I.,  c.  67,  Otto.  t  Dial.,  pp.  117,  202;  Otto,  cc.  17,  108. 

t  Dial.,  cc.  16,  47,  93,  96,  Otto.     [See  Otto  on  c.  16,  note  9.  —Ed.) 
§  Dial.,  cc.  38,  112,  Otto. 


THE    MEMORY    OF    JUSTIN.  91 

merits  were  very  great.  We  honor  his  courage,  his  sincerity, 
his  ardent  thirst  for  truth,  his  moral  elevation,  his  boldness  in 
defending  the  cause  of  Christ,  and  pleading  for  the  rights  of 
common  humanity  before  throne.",  —  looking  death  calmly  in 
the  face.  In  such  men,  we  can  overlook  intellectual  defects, 
and  pardon  some  errors  of  opinion  and  some  absurd  fancies. 
These  are  thrown  into  the  shade  by  their  great  qualities.  It 
may  be  cause  of  gratitude  to  any  of  us,  if,  through  God's  help, 
we  are  enabled  to  walk  as  firmly  on  the  way  of  duty,  and  be 
as  faithful  to  our  convictions,  as  was  this  philosopher  and 
martyr  of  the  elder  days  of  the  church. 


NOTR 


EPISTLE   TO   DIOGNETUS. 

QuBSiiON  OF  ITS  Genuineness  and  Date. — Its  Theology.  —  Suprem- 
acy OF  THE  Father.  —  Mission  of  the  Son.  —  Implanted  or  Insown 
Logos.  —  Authorship  and  Doctrine  of  the  Concluding  Portion  op 
the  Epistle. 

We  will  add  in  a  note  a  few  words  on  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  which, 
though  generally  found  among  the  collected  works  of  Justin,  is,  as  before 
stated,  of  uncertain  authorship.  Semisch  *  and  Otto  f  give  at  some  length 
the  arguments  and  authorities  for  and  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Epis- 
tle, which  was  first  published  by  Henry  Stephens,  in  1592.  Several  among 
the  older  critics,  and  some  in  more  recent  times,  place  it  among  the  genuine 
works  of  the  Martyr.  But  learned  authorities  greatly  preponderate  on  the 
other  side ;  they  deny  its  genuineness.  So  Neander  and  Semisch,  the  lat- 
ter of  whom  maintains  that  the  spuriousness  of  the  piece  may  be  "  deter- 
mined to  a  degree  of  certainty  that  is  seldom  attainable  in  critical  inquiries." 
Otto  is  undecided,  but  inserts  the  Epistle  along  with  other  pieces  of  doubt- 
ful or  unknown  authorship,  in  his  edition  of  the  works  of  Justin.  Its  gen- 
eral style  and  cast  of  thought,  we  think,  clearly  show  that  it  is  not  Justin's, 
though  probably  written,  or  the  main  body  of  it  at  least,  in  his  age.  Tille- 
mont  and  several  others,  however,  assign  to  it  an  earlier  date.  Neander 
refers  it  to  the  "  early  part  of  the  second  century." 

It  is,  in  its  more  practical  parts,  at  least,  a  much  admired  production,  of 
great  value  and  interest  as  presenting  a  vivid  picture  of  Christian  life  at 
the  period  at  which  it  was  written.  Neander  places  it  among  the  "  finest 
remains  of  Christian  antiquity."  Bunsen  strongly  commends  it.  "  It  is," 
says  he,  "  indisputably,  after  Scripture,  the  finest  monument  we  know  of 
sound  Christian  feeling,  noble  courage,  and  manly  eloquence."  He  is  very 
confident  that  it  was  written,  the  conclusion,  as  we  shall  presently  see, 
excepted,  by  Marcion,  before  he  separated  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  that 
is,  in  the  year  135,  and  that  Diognetus  was  the  early  tutor  of  Marcus 
Aurelius.  All  this,  however,  is  mere  hypothesis.  Bunsen  adduces  no  ex- 
ternal testimony  in  favor  of  any  part  of  the  statement ;  but  says,  that 
"  there  is  nothing  in  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus  which  might  not  have  been 
written  by  Marcion,  but  there  is  much  in  it  which,  as  far  as  history  goes, 

*  Justin  Martyr,  i.  193-207. 

t  De  Just.  Mart.  Scriptis  et  Doctrina,  pp.  53-60. 


EPISTLE   TO    DIOGNETUS.  93 

nobody  could  have  written  except  young  Marcion,  or  his  unknown  foster- 
brother  in  soul."  *     This  is  very  unsatisfactory. 

We  will  give  one  or  two  extracts  from  the  work,  which  will  show  that 
the  writer,  whoever  he  was,  taught  the  current  doctrine  of  the  supremacy 
of  the  Father,  and  was  no  Athanasian.  We  use  Otto's  text,  second  edi- 
tion, 1849. 

"  But  the  truly  Omnipotent  God,  the  Creator  of  all  things,  and  invisible, 
himself  implanted  from  heaven  and  fixed  in  the  hearts  of  men  the  truth 
and  the  holy  and  incomprehensible  Logos ;  not,  as  one  might  suppose,  send- 
ing to  men  any  servant,  either  angel  or  chief  ruler,  or  any  one  of  those 
who  direct  the  affairs  of  earth,  or  who  minister  in  heaven,  but  the  artificer 
and  maker  of  the  universe  himself;  by  whom  he  [God]  created  the  heav- 
ens ;  by  whom  he  enclosed  the  sea  within  its  bounds,"  etc.  "  Him  he  sent 
to  them.  Was  it,  as  one  might  think,  for  the  purpose  of  tyranny,  or  to  pro- 
duce fear  and  consternation  ?  No,  indeed.  But  in  mercy,  in  lenity ;  as  a 
king,  sending  his  royal  Son,  he  sent  him ;  sent  him  as  God ;  f  sent  him 
as  unto  men ;  sent  him  to  save,  to  persuade,  not  to  force,  for  violence  is  not 
of  God;  sent  him  to  call,  not  to  pei-secute;  sent  him  in  love,  not  for  judg- 
ment." X 

Here  is  no  Trinitarian  ism  and  no  Augustinlanism.  The  supremacy  of 
the  Father,  and  subordination  of  the  Son,  are  asserted  as  strongly  as  they 
well  can*  be ;  and  neither  here,  nor  in  any  other  part  of  the  Epistle,  is  there 
the  remotest  allusion  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  God  appears  full  of  love  and 
compassion,  not  as  a  wrathful  judge.  His  benevolence,  mercy,  and  love 
are  brought  out  in  prominent  relief  in  the  next  chapter,  the  eighth.  "  He 
always  was,"  says  the  writer,  "  and  is  and  shall  be  benignant  and  good, 
wrathless  and  true,  and  alone  is  good."  The  phrase,  "  he  (God)  took  our 
sins,"  which  occurs  in  the  ninth  chapter,  and  savors  strongly  of  Patripas- 
sianism,  is  probably,  as  Sylbui-g  and  Otto  suppose,  a  gloss,  which  crept  into 
the  text  from  the  margin,  where  it  might  have  been  placed  as  a  citation 
from  Isaiah  liii.  4,  11.  If  not,  the  writer  contradicts  himself,  for  in  the 
same  sentence  he  says,  that  "he  (God)  gave  his  Son  to  be  a  ransom  for 
us."     It  was  the  Son,  not  the  Father,  who  bore  our  sins. 

The  writer's  doctrine  of  the  "  insown,  or  implanted  Logos,"  resembles 
that  of  Justin  Martyr.  This  is  taught  in  the  passage  first  quoted.  Again, 
"  God  loved  men,  on  account  of  whom  he  made  the  world,  to  whom  he 
subjected  all  things  in  the  earth ;  to  whom  he  gave  reason  (Logos),  to 
whom  understanding ;  whom  alone  he  permitted  to  look  upward  to  him ; 

*  Christianity  and  Mankind,  i.  170-173.  Bunsen  (pp.  174-181)  gives  a  translation 
of  the  Epistle,  and  in  another  part  of  his  work  (vol.  v.),  Analecta  Ante-Nicana  (i, 
03-121),  the  original  Greek. 

t  "  That  is,  one  who  by  his  nature  is  good  and  benignant,  and  a  lover  of  men."  — 
Otto's  note.  [Otto  refers  for  illustration  to  c.  10  of  this  Epistle,  where  we  read,  "  He 
who,  by  bestowing  upon  the  needy  the  things  which  he  has  received  from  God,  be- 
comes a  God  to  those  who  receive  them,  -Qeo^  ylvETai  tuv  TiauBavovTuv,  is  an  imitatoi 
of  God."— Ed.] 

t  Cap.  7. 


94  EPISTLE    TO   DIOGNETUS. 

whom  he  formed  in  his  own  image  ;  to  whom  he  sent  his  only-begotten  Son ; 
to  whom  he  pi-omised  the  kingdom  in  heaven,  and  will  give  it  to  those  who 
love  him." 

This  language  is  taken  from  the  tenth  chapter.  Two  chapters,  called  by 
Semisch  and  Otto  an  "Appendix,"  follow,  which  there  is  ground  for  con- 
eluding,  partly  from  the  evidence  of  manuscripts  and  partly  from  internal 
evidence,  are  supposititious.*  There  is  in  them  little  which  is  to  our  present 
purpose.    In  the  eleventh  chapter  we  hear  of  the  Logos  "manifested,"  and 

of  the  same  as  "  sent preached  by  the  Apostles,  believed  in  by  the 

Gentiles."  Then  follows  a  somewhat  obscure  passage,  in  which  this  Logos 
is  spoken  of  as  "from  the  beginning,"  —  who,  it  is  added,  "appeared  as 
new  and  is  found  to  be  old,  and  who,  ever  young,  is  begotten  in  the  hearts 
of  the  sanctified."  It  is  the  Logos  "  that  was  always  "  (as  an  attribute), 
but  "  to-day  is  accounted  a  Son,"  in  reference,  it  would  seem,  to  Psalm  ii. 
7 :  "  Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee." 

There  is  nothing  in  this  language,  which  somewhat  resembles  that  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  which  is  not  readily  explained  on  Justin's  theory 
of  God's  indwelling  Logos  or  reason.  Nothing  is  said  of  the  eternal  gen- 
eration of  the  Son ;  that  doctrine  is  excluded  by  the  terms  employed.f 
There  is  nothing  in  the  language  which  conflicts  with  the  supremacy  of  the 
Father,  or  the  derived  nature  of  the  Son.  The  supremacy  of  the  Father, 
Infinite,  Omnipotent,  One,  the  Original  of  all  things,  whose  minister  the 
Logos,  or  Son  was,  sent  by  him,  is  preserved  intact ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  before  observed,  is  not  so  much  as  alluded  to,  we  think,  in  the  whole 
letter. 

*  See  Semisch's  note,  i.  195,  196.  "  That  part  of  the  Epistle,"  says  he,  "  is  a  spuri- 
ous addition  not  belonging  to  the  original  writer."  It  "  betra3's  a  much  later  date 
than  the  second  centur}'."  See  also  Otto's  note  at  the  commencement  of  the  elev- 
enth chapter.  Bunsen  argues  at  some  length  that  this  fragment  appended,  in  the 
manuscript,  to  tlie  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  constituted  no  part  of  the  original  Epistle, 
but  formed  the  missing  conclusion  of  the  work  of  Hippolytus,  —  a  "  Refutation  of  all 
Heresies."  "  We  want,"  he  says,  "  an  end  to  our  great  work  in  ten  books,  a  wind- 
ing up  worthy  of  the  grand  subject Now  we  find  such  a  concluding  fragment, 

which  wants  a  beginning  and  an  author.  Whether  we  consider  its  contents,  or  its 
style,  if  it  is  not,  it  might  very  well  be,  the  close  of  our  work."  This  appears  to  us 
to  be  rather  loose  reasoning.  —  Christianity  and  Mankind,  i.  415-417,  and  v.  119 
{Analecta,  vol.  i.).  Others  find  "  differences  of  style  between  the  Epistle  and  the  Ap- 
pendix." The  latter  probably  had  an  Alexandrian  origin,  as  late,  at  least,  as  the 
middle  of  the  third  century,  perhaps  later. 

t  It  is  not  difficult  to  speak  of  the  eternity  of  the  divine  Wisdom  or  Reason  — 
Logos.  This  is  a  very  different  thing  from  saying  that  the  Son  was  eternal,  which  was 
not  a  doctrine  of  this  age.  The  personality  of  the  Son,  as  a  self-subsisting  being, 
was  not  till  sometime  afterwards  represented  as  eternal.  The  Son  was  not  said  to 
36  eternal  except  as  an  attribute,  that  is,  the  Reason,  Wisdom,  Logos  of  God. 


FATHERS    SUBSEQUENT    TO   JUSTIN    MARTYR, 

AND   BEFORE   THE   TIME   OF   CLEMENT 

OF  ALEXANDRIA. 


CHAPTER  L 

Patian  the  Syrian.  —  His  History.  —  The  Son  a  Hypostatized  At- 
tribute.—  Had  a  Beginning.  —  Numerically  distinguished  from 
the  Father,  and  Subordinate.  —  Theophilus  of  Antioch.  —  Thr 
Son  originally  the  Logos,  or  Reason  of  God.  —  Begotten  in  Time. 
—  The  Instrument  of  THE  Father  in  the  Creation.  —  The  Father 
ALONE  AN  Object  of  Supreme  Worship.  —  The  Term  Trinity  first 
used.  —  The  Spirit  confounded  with  the  Logos.  —  Athenagoras 
preserves  the  Supremacy  of  the  Father.  —  How  he  speaks  of  the 
Logos.  —  The  Spirit  an  Influence. 

The  Fathers  who  Hved  between  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr 
and  that  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  were  no  better  Trinitari- 
ans than  Justin  himself;  that  is,  they  beheved  in  no  undivided, 
coequal  Three,  but  taught  a  doctrine  wholly  irreconcilable 
with  this  belief.  A  rapid  glance  at  the  writings  of  the  prin- 
cipal of  these  Fathers  will  make  this  plain. 


Tatian  the  Syrian. 

First  comes  Tatian.  Born  in  the  "  land  of  the  Assyrians,*' 
as  he  himself  informs  us,  Tatian  was  educated  in  the  Greek 
religion  and  philosophy,  and  was  by  pi'ofession  a  sophist,  or 
teacher  of  rhetoric,  and  perhaps  also  of  philosophy.  He  had 
no  mean  knowledcre  of  Greek  literature.  He  travelled  over 
many  countries,  engaging,  it  would  seem,  in  different  pursuits, 
and  finally  came  to  Rome.  In  his  opinions  he  appears  to  have 
been  a  Platonist,  but,  like  many  others  at  that  period,  he 
lost  his  reverence  for  philosophy,  which  did  not  satisfy  his 


96   FATHERS  BETWEEN  JUSTIN  AND  CLEMENT  OP  ALEXANDRIA. 

higher  aspirations.  The  Pagan  rehgion,  too,  with  its  impuri- 
ties, filled  his  mind  with  disgust.  At  this  time  the  writings  of 
the  Old  Testament  fell  into  his  hands,  and  his  conversion  to 
Christianity  followed  soon  after.  Whether  this  event  took 
place  before  or  after  his  acquaintance  with  Justin  Martyr  com- 
menced, is  not  certain.  At  all  events,  he  was  his  hearer  and 
disciple.  At  a  subsequent  period,  probably  not  till  after  the 
death  of  Justin,  he  became  the  founder  of  an  ascetic  and 
heretical  sect.  While  at  Rome,  where  he  was  at  the  time  of 
Justin's  martyrdom,  he  appears  to  have  remained  in  fellowship 
with  the  Church  there.  He  afterwards  returned  to  the  East. 
Of  his  subsequent  history  little  is  known.  Of  the  time  and 
place  of  his  death  we  have  no  information.  His  writings  were 
numerous.  Eusebius  says  that  he  "  left  many  monuments  of 
himself  in  his  works,"  —  left  a  "  great  number  of  books,"  — * 
and  Jerome  tells  us  that  he  wrote  a  countless  multitude  of 
volumes.f  We  still  possess  his  "  Oration  against  the  Greeks." 
He  flourished  about  the  year  170. 

In  terms  similar  to  those  employed  by  Justin,  Tatian  de- 
scribes God  alone  as  without  beginning,  invisible,  ineffable, 
the  orifiinal  cause  of  all  thino-s,  visible  and  invisible,  —  lano-uaore 
confined  by  the  early  Christian  writers  to  the  Father,  and 
never  applied  to  the  Son.  The  following  language  occurs  in 
his  "  Oration  against  the  Greeks."  Speaking  of  the  beginning 
in  relation  to  God,  he  says :  — 

"  This  beginning  was  the  rational  power  (Logos,  reason  as 
it  existed  in  God).  The  Lord  of  all,  being  himself  the  essence 
(or  principle)  of  all  things,  was,  in  relation  to  things  not  yet 
created,  alone.  Now  inasmuch  as  he  is  the  original  of  all 
power,  and  the  principle  (or  cause)  of  all  things  visible  and 
invisible,  all  things  were  with  him.  With  him  by  virtue  of 
his  rational  power  was  also  the  Logos  itself,  which  was  in  him. 
By  his  simple  volition  the  Logos  leaped  out  of  him,  not  as  an 
empty  voice,  but  was  the  first  begotten  work  of  the  Father. 
This  Logos  was  the  beginning  of  the  world,  and  was  begotten 
by  communication,  not  by  abscission.  .  .  .  For  the  Logos, 
proceeding  from  the  power  of  the  Father,  did  not  leave  the 
Father  without  Logos  (reason). "J 

*  Hist.,  iv  16,  29.  t  De  Tir.  lllusL,  c.  29.  J  Cap.  6. 


THEOPHILUS   OF   ANTIOCH.  97 

The  idea  or  theory  is  the  same  as  Justin's.  Like  him  it  is 
evident  that  Tatian  regarded  the  Son  as  originally  and  from 
eternity  in  and  with  God,  not  as  a  real  being  or  person,  but 
only  as  an  attribute,  or  by  virtue  of  his  power  of  begetting 
him ;  in  him  and  with  him,  only  as  all  things  created  were  ; 
that  is,  not  as  the  actual,  but  as  the  possible.  This,  indeed, 
he  asserts  almost  in  so  many  words.  He  speaks  of  the  Son  as 
having  a  beginning,  that  is,  considered  as  a  real  subsistence 
or  person  ;  and  he  evidently  regarded  him,  after  his  produc- 
tion, as  a  being  distinct  fi'om  the  Father,  and  subordinate  to 
him.  The  Son  was  produced  by  the  Father,  he  tells  us,  as 
one  torch  is  lighted  from  another,  the  lighted  torch  not  lessen- 
ing  that  from  which  it  is  lighted ;  or  as  speech  is  produced  in 
us  from  the  faculty  of  speech  within,  that  faculty  remaining 
undiminished,  —  illustrations  which  were  common  with  the 
Fathers,  and  imply  a  numerical  distinction  of  being  and 
essence.  This  distinction  is  expressly  asserted  by  Justin, 
Tatian's  master,  who  contends,  in  words  as  plain  and  une- 
quivocal as  language  affords,  that  the  Father  and  Son  are  t\,'o 
in  number ;  two  beings :  the  one  visible,  the  other  invisible ; 
the  one  remaining  fixed  in  his  place,  the  other  capable  of 
motion  from  place  to  place ;  and  Tatian  evidently  trod  in  his 
steps. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch. 

Another  writer  of  some  repute  at  this  time  was  Theophilus, 
who  became  Bishop  of  Antioch,  the  chief  seat  of  Christianity 
in  the  East,  in  the  year  169.  He  was  a  convert  from  hea- 
thenism, having  been  won  over  to  Christianity,  as  he  himself 
informs  us,  by  reading  the  ancient  books  of  the  Jews.  He 
wrote  several  works  mentioned  by  Jerome,  which  are  lost. 
But  we  have  his  three  books  to  Autolycus,  his  friend,  yet  a 
heatben,  whom  he  was  desirous  to  bring  over  to  Christianity. 
A  contemporary  with  Tatian,  he  taught  the  same  doctrine. 
He  speaks  of  God  as  Supreme,  the  "true  and  only  God," 
without  beginning,  invisible,  unbegotten,  and  as  such  immu- 
table ;  and  of  the  Son  as  inferior,  having  as  a  real  being  or 
7 


98      FATHERS   BETWEEN   JUSTIN   AND   CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA. 

person  a  beginning,  visible,  begotten,  and  therefore,  according 
to  his  philosophy,  not  possessing  the  attribute  of  immutability, 
which  belonged  only  to  the  unbegotten  One.* 

Here  is  his  account  of  the  generation  of  the  Son.  "  God," 
he  says,  "  having  the  Logos  within  himself  (the  Logos  in  him 
being  what  Reason  is  in  man),  begat  him  before  all  things. 
This  Logos  was  his  helper  in  all  the  works  brought  into  exist- 
ence by  him,  and  through  him  [as  his  minister]  he  made  all 
things.  .  .  .  He  being  the  Spirit  of  God  and  the  beginning, 
the  Wisdom  and  Power  of  the  Most  High,  inspired  the  proph- 
ets. The  prophets  existed  not  when  the  world  was  made,  but 
the  Wisdom  of  God,  which  was  in  him  and  of  him,  and  his 
holy  Logos,  were  always  present  with  him.f  He  spoke,  as  the 
writer  supposed,  through  Solomon  (Proverbs  viii.  22,  etc.). 
Again,  "  God  the  Father  of  all  things,"  he  says,  "  cannot  be 
confined  to  space,  or  be  found  in  place."  So  he  refers  the 
theophanies  in  the  Old  Testament  to  the  Logos  or  Son.  It 
was  he  who  walked  in  Paradise  ;  it  was  his  voice  which  Adam 
heard.  "  Of  him,  before  the  creation,  God  took  counsel,  he 
being  his  own  reason,  or  wisdom.  And  when  he  willed  to 
create  what  he  had  designed,  he  begot  this  Logos,  the  emitted 
first-born  of  every  creature,  not  emptying  himself  of  Logos 
(Reason),  but  begetting  it,  and  always  holding  converse  with 
his  own  Logos  (Reason)."  :j: 

Thus  the  uttered  or  begotten  Logos  or  Reason  of  God  be- 
came a  real  person,  having  a  proper  subsistence  in  himself, 
without  diminishing,  or  taking  from,  God's  understanding, 
Logos  or  Reason.  This  distinction  between  the  internal  and 
the  uttered  or  begotten  Logos,  more  marked  in  Theophilus,  in 
language,  at  least,  than  in  those  who  preceded  him,  pervades 
all  the  writings  of  subsequent  Fathers. 

Again,  Theophilus  contends  expressly  that  "  the  true  God," 
by  whom  he  always  understands  the  Father,  is  alone  to  be 
worshipped.  §  But  it  is  unnecessary  to  adduce  further  evi- 
dence of  his  views  of  the  Son,  whom  he  clearly  regarded  as 
begotten  or  produced  from  the  reason  of  the  Father,  a  little 
before  the  creation  of  the  world  ;  thus  becoming  a  distinct 

*  Ad  AutoL,  lib.  i.  cc.  4-6.  t  Ibid.,  lib.  ii.  c.  10. 

t  Ibid.,  lib.  ii.  c.  22.  §  Ibid.,  lib.  i.  c.  11. 


THEOPHILUS    OF   ANTIOCH.  99 

being,  subject  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  and  not  entitled  to 
equal  adoration.* 

Theophilus  was  the  first  Christian  writer  who  used  the  term 
"Trias,"  Trinity,  in  reference  to  the  Deity;  but  it  is  deserv- 
ing of  remark,  that,  to  adopt  the  modern  phraseology,  the 
three  "distinctions,"  or  three  "somewhats,"  designated  hy  it, 
are,  according  to  him,  "  God,  his  Logos,  and  his  Wisdom  "  ;  f 
not,  however,  asserting  their  equality,  which  is  opposed  to 
his  plainest  teachings.  Then  there  may  be  a  Trinity  of  attrib- 
utes as  well  as  of  persons.  Names  signify  little.  It  is  the 
ideas  attached  to  them  which  we  want,  —  what  they  stand 
for.  By  wisdom,  Theophilus  may  mean  the  Spirit;  though, 
in  the  theology  of  the  Fathers,  it  was  generally  considered  as 
synonymous  with  the  Logos,  or  Word.  It  was  often,  how- 
ever, confounded  with  the  Spirit.^  Theophilus  adds,  "  and  in 
the  fourth  place  is  man." 

*  When  Theophilus  speaks  of  God  as  consulting  his  Logos,  or  Wisdom, 
before  the  generation  of  the  Son,  he  evidently  uses  a  figurative  mode  of  ex- 
pression. So  a  man  is  said  to  take  counsel  of  his  understanding  or  of  his 
affections ;  he  consults  his  sense  of  duty  or  his  inclination  ;  but  no  one  sup- 
poses this  phraseology  to  imply  that  the  understanding  or  afiections  or  con- 
science are  real  beings,  persons.  Such  expressions  are  fimiiliar  in  all  lan- 
guages ;  and  they  serve  to  explain  what  is  meant  by  the  early  Fathers,  when 
they  speak  of  God  as  consulting  his  Logos,  Reason,  or  Wisdom,  before  the 
event  called  by  them  the  generation  of  the  Son, — and  perhaps  even  after,  as 
in  one  of  tlie  above  quotations  which  appears  somewhat  obscure  (lib.  ii.  c.  22). 
The  phraseology  is  not  of  a  nature  to  create  the  least  embarrassment.  Every 
school-boy  knows  better  than  to  construe  it  as  implying  an  actual  consultation 
between  real  beings. 

t  Ad  Autol.,  lib.  ii.  c.  15. 

X  The  Fathers  often  confounded  the  Spirit  with  the  Logos,  adhering  to  the 
old  Jewish  phraseology,  but  attributing  to  it  an  entirely  new  sense.  Thus,  in 
Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  —  "  By  the  ivord  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made ;  and  all 
the  host  of  them,  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth,"  or  spirit,  —  the  two  terms,  ivord 
and  spirit,  are  used  to  express  the  same  thing ;  that  is,  a  divine  operation. 
There  is  no  allusion  whatever  to  persons  or  separate  agents,  but  only  to  a 
mode  of  divine  agency.  Such  was  the  Jewish  sense  of  the  terms ;  and  in 
this  sense  they  were  synonymous.  When  the  Platonizing  Fathers  had  affixed 
a  new  sense  to  the  term  "  Logos,"  or  "  Word,"  considering  it  as  designating 
a  real  person,  they  still  for  a  time  retained  former  Jewish  modes  of  expres- 
sion, though  utterly  at  variance  with  their  system.  Thus  they  speak  indis- 
criminately of  the  Spirit  and  Logos  as  inspiring  the  prophets ;  and  of  the 
Spirit,  or  Power  of  God,  or  Logos,  as  overshadowing  Mary.  According  to 
the  sense  the  Jews  attributed  to  those  terms,  there  was  no  inconsistency  in 
this  use  of  them ;  the  breath,  spirit,  power,  or  word  of  the  Lord,  being  only 


100   FATHERS  BETWEEN  JUSTIN  AND  CLEMENT  OP  ALEXANDRIA. 


Athenagoras. 

Athenagoras,  a  learned  Athenian,  also  flourished  during  the 
latter  part  of  the  second  century.  That  he  was  ever,  as  has 
been  asserted,  connected  with  the  celebrated  Catechetical 
School  at  Alexandria,  is  not  probable.  He  was  an  Athenian 
by  birth,  but  of  his  personal  history  nothing  is  known.  Neither 
Eusebius  nor  Jerome  mentions  his  name.  He  wrote  an  Apol- 
ogy for  Christians  in  the  time  of  Marcus  Aurelius  and  his 
son  Commodus,  and  was  also  the  author  of  a  treatise  on  the 
Resurrection,  both  of  which  are  preserved.  He  was  equally 
careful,  with  the  writers  above  quoted,  to  preserve  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  Father,  and  seems  to  have  entertained  similar  views 
of  the  nature  and  rank  of  the  Son. 

"  The  Son  of  God,"  he  says,  "  is  the  Logos  (Reason)  of  the 
Father  in  idea  and  operation."  "  Through  it  all  things  were 
made."  "  The  Son  of  God  is  the  understanding  and  reason 
of  the  Father."  "  God  from  the  beginning  being  eternal 
reason,  had  in  himself  the  Logos  (Reason),  being  always 
rational."  *  The  attribute  reason,  or  wisdom,  was  eternal,  but 
not  the  Son  as  a  personal  being.  Of  him  it  could  be  said, 
"  The  Lord  created  me  the  beginning  of  his  ways  to  his 
works."     Athenagoras,  with  the  other  Fathers,  made  a  dis- 

different  modes  of  expressing  a  divine  influence,  or  act  of  power.  But  when 
the  Logos,  or  Word,  came  to  be  considered  a  person  or  being,  distinct  from 
the  Father  and  Spirit,  whether  the  last  was  regarded  as  a  person  or  an  influ- 
ence, the  phraseology  became  absurd.  The  Fathers,  however,  continued  to 
use  it  occasionally,  from  the  effect  of  habit.  The  history  of  the  phraseology 
in  question ;  the  signification  it  bore  in  the  writings  of  the  Jews  ;  its  incon- 
sistency with  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers,  though  from  custom  they  continued 
to  employ  it,  — afford  to  our  minds  conclusive  evidence,  had  we  no  other,  that 
they  were  innovators.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was,  as  yet,  very  imper- 
fectly formed.  As  it  became  further  advanced,  the  phraseology  alluded  to 
was  gradually  dropped. 

Commenting  on  the  above  quoted  passage  of  Theophilus,  Hagenbach  says, 
"Here  we  have  indeed  the  word  rpius,  but  not  in  the  ecclesiastical  sense  of  the 
term  Trinity ;  for  as  uvdpunoc  is  mentioned  as  the  fourth  term,  it  is  evident 
that  the  rpiug  cannot  be  taken  here  as  a  perfect  whole,  consisting  of  three 
joined  in  one ;  besides,  the  term  aofla  is  used  instead  of  rb  irvev/ia  uyiov."  — 
Text-Book,  First  Period,  §  45. 

*  Legal.,  c.  10.     See  also  c.  16. 


ATHENAGORAS.  101 

tinction.  The  supremacy  of  the  Father,  who  was  invisible, 
impassible,  and  who,  himself  "  unbegotten  and  eternal," 
created  all  things  by  his  Logos,  or  Reason,*  was  not  infringed. 
The  Holy  Spirit  Athenagoras  describes  as  something  flow- 
ing out  from  God,  as  rays  flow  from  the  sun,  and  are  re-ab- 
sorbed, that  is,  not  a  person,  but  an  influence. f 

*  It  has  been  made  a  question,  indeed,  whether  Athenagoras  believed  that 
the  Divine  Logos,  or  Keason,  became  permanently  hypostatized  in  the  Son  ; 
or  in  speaking  of  the  creation  used  the  word  in  the  older  Platonic  sense,  as 
meaning  the  reason,  power,  or  wisdom  of  God  in  action.  He  says  in  one 
place,  "  God  is  in  himself  all  things,  —  light  unapproachable,  the  perfect  world, 
spirit,  power,  logos."  Justin  Martyr,  however,  could  have  used  the  same 
language,  and  we  think,  some  obscure  expressions  which  look  the  other  way 
notwithstanding,  that  Athenagoras  agreed  with  him  and  with  the  early 
Fathers  generally,  in  assigning  separate  personality,  or  self-subsistence  to  the 
Son  as  the  begotten  Logos,  Reason  of  the  Father.  See  Martini,  Versuch,  etc., 
p.  55. 

t  Td  kvepyovv  rolg  iK(l>uvovm  npo(})7]nKC)g  ayiov  nvevfia  a.n6/)^oiav  elvai  (pajxev  Toi 
^eov,  airol)()EOV  Kol  knava^epoftevov  ug  oKTiva  tiTuov.  —  Legat.,  c.  10 ;  comp.  c.  21. 


102   FATHEES  BETWEEN  JUSTIN  AND  CLEMENT  OP  ALEXANDRIA. 


CHAPTER   11. 

[ken^ds.  —  His   History  and  Writings.  —  The   Son  a  Separate  Be- 
ing  FROM   the  Father,   and   Subordinate.  —  Quotations.  —  Christ 

SUFFERED    IN    HIS  WhOLE    NaTURE.  —  ThE    LoGOS    SUPPLIED    THE    PlACE 

of  THE  Rational  Soul  in  Jesus  Christ.  —  Tertullian.  —  Character 
AND  Writings.  —  Makes  the  Father  and  Son  Two  Beings. —  The 
Son  Inferior.  —  Not  Eternal.  —  Tertullian's  Creeds.  —  Omission 
of  the  Spsrit.  —  The  Father  more  Ancient,  Nobler,  and  more 
Powerful  than  the  Son.  —  The  Unlearned  Christians. — Their 
Horror  op  the  OEconomt,  or  Trinity.  —  How  Tertullian  saybs 
THE  Unity.  —  The  Catacombs. 


iRENiEUS. 

We  pass  to  Irenaeus.  He  is  supposed  to  have  been  a  native 
of  Smyrna,  or  at  least,  of  some  part  of  Lesser  Asia.  He  was 
thus  a  Greek  by  birth.  In  his  youth,  as  he  informs  us  in  a 
letter  to  Florinus,  a  portion  of  which  has  been  preserved  by 
Eusebius,*  he  was  well  acquainted  with  the  venerable  Poly- 
carp.  Jerome  calls  him  a  man  of  the  apostolic  times,  and 
says  that  he  was  a  discij)le  of  Papias,  who  was  a  hearer  of 
John  the  Evangelist.f  When  and  under  what  circumstances 
he  went  to  Gaul,  history  does  not  inform  us.  We  only  know 
that  he  became  Bishop  of  Lyons,  in  that  province,  after  the 
martyrdom  of  Pothinus,  a.  d.  177.  He  survived  till  very  late 
in  the  second  century,  and  possibly  till  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  third.  He  wrote  a  work,  in  five  books,  against 
the  Gnostic  heretics,  the  original  of  which,  with  the  exception 
of  a  considerable  part  of  the  first  and  some  fragments  of  other 
books,  is  lost,  the  remainder  being  preserved  only  in  an  old 
and  barbarous  Latin  translation. 

Irenaeus  has  left  on  record  a  summary  or  summaries  of  the 
faith  of  Christians  of  his  day,  in  language,  however,  which 
will  not  satisfy  the  demands  of  a  later  orthodoxy.^     With  the 

*  Hist,  V.  20.  t  Epist.  29,  ad  Theod. 

t  Contra  Hcer.,  lib.  i.  c.  10,  §  1.     See  also  lib.  iv.  c.  33,  §  7,  ed.  Migne.  Par 
1867 


IREN^US.  103 

preceding  Fathers  already  named,  he  agreed  in  assigning  to 
the  Son  a  separate  existence,  making  him  inferior  to  the 
Father ;  but  the  mode  of  his  generation  he  would  not  discuss, 
deeming  it  inexplicable.  In  his  antagonism  to  the  Gnostic 
doctrine  of  emanations,  he  was  led  to  connect  with  the  Son 
the  terms  "  always  "  and  "  eternal "  ;  it  is  difficult  to  define  in 
what  sense.  He  wants  clearness,  and  his  notions  seem  not  to 
have  been  well  defined  even  to  himself.  "  Who,"  he  asks, 
with  the  prophet,  "  can  declare  his  generation  ?  No  one. 
No  one  knows  it ;  not  Valentinus,  not  Marcion,  neither  Satur- 
ninus,  nor  BasiHdes,  nor  angels,  nor  archangels,  nor  princes, 
nor  powers,  none  but  the  Father  who  begat,  and  the  Son  who 
was  begotten."  He  is  very  careful,  however,  on  all  occasions 
to  distinguish  the  Son  fi*om  the  "  One  true  and  only  God," 
who  is  "  supreme  over  all,  and  besides  whom  there  is  no 
other."  Take  two  or  three  passages  as  specimens.  "  The 
Father  is  above  all,  and  is  himself  the  head  of  Christ."  * 
"  John  preached  one  God  supreme  over  all,  and  one  only-be- 
gotten Son  Jesus  Christ."f  "  The  Church  dispersed  through- 
out all  the  world  has  received  from  the  Apostles  and  their 
disciples  this  belief — in  one  God  the  Father,  supreme  over 
all  ...  .  and  in  one  Jesus  Christ  ....  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  through  the  prophets  preached  the  dispensations,"  etc.J 
We  could  fill  pages  with  similar  passages.  No  language  could 
more  clearly  and  positively  assert  the  supremacy  of  the  Father. 

The  Father  sends,  the  Son  is  sent ;  the  Father  commands, 
the  Son  executes,  ministering  to  his  will.  The  Father  grants, 
the  Son  receives  power  and  dominion.  The  Father  gives  him 
the  "  heritage  of  the  nations,"  and  "  subjects  all  his  enemies 
to  him."  §  These  and  similar  expressions  which  form  his  cur- 
rent phraseology,  —  which  are  interwoven,  in  fact,  with  the 
texture  of  his  whole  work  against  heresies,  —  could  not  have 
been  employed  by  one  who  conceived  of  the  Son  as  numerically 
the  same  being  with  the  Father,  or  as  in  any  sense  his  equal. 

Again  :  he  quotes  the  words  of  the  Saviour  (Mark  xiii.  32) 

*  Conira  Rcer.,  lib.  v.  c.  18,  §  2. 
t  Ibid.,  lib.  i.  c.  9,  §  2. 
J  Ibid.,  lib.  i.  c.  10,  §  1. 

§  See,  among  other  passages,  Ibid.,  i.  22,  §  1 ;  iii.  6,  §  1 ;  iii.  8,  §  3 ;  iy.  t, 
§7;  iv.  38,  §3. 


104   FATHERS  BETWEEN  JUSTIN  AND  CLEMENT  OP  ALEXANDRIA. 

"  But  of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man  ;  no,  not  the 
angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father," 
without  any  attempt  to  explain  them  away,  or  evade  the  ob- 
vious inference.  He  admits  their  truth  in  the  simplest  and 
broadest  sense,  and  thence  adduces  an  argument  for  humility. 
"  If  the  Son,"  says  he,  "  vi^as  not  ashamed  to  refer  the  knowl- 
edge of  that  day  to  the  Father,  neither  should  we  be  ashamed 
to  reserve  the  solution  of  difficult  questions  to  God."  *  He 
goes  further.  Far  from  denying  the  inference  to  be  drawn 
from  the  expression  referred  to,  he  expressly  admits  it.  Our 
Saviour,  he  observes,  used  this  expression  that  "  we  might 
learn  from  him  that  the  Father  is  above  all ;  for  '  the  Father,' 
he  says,  'is  greater  than  I.'  "f  The  doctrine  of  two  natures, 
by  the  help  of  which  modern  Trinitarians  attempt  to  evade 
the  force  of  this  and  similar  passages,  was  not  as  yet  invented. 

It  was  the  doctrine  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  of  primitive 
antiquity  generally,  that  Jesus  Christ  suifered  in  his  whole 
nature.  Such  certainly  was  the  opinion  of  Irenaeus,  if  we  can 
credit  his  own  language.  He  believed  that  Jesus  Christ  suf- 
fered in  his  superior  as  well  as  in  his  inferior  nature.  There 
were  some  sects  of  the  Gnostics,  especially  the  followers  of 
Cerinthus,  who  maintained  that  a  certain  exalted  intelligence 
called  Christ  descended  on  Jesus  at  his  baptism,  and  left  him 
and  ascended  at  his  crucifixion.  This  opinion  Irenaeus  strenu- 
ously combats,  in  a  formal  argument  of  some  length.  Paul, 
he  says,  knew  no  Christ  but  him  who  suffered.  If  there  was 
a  Christ  who  left  Jesus  before  the  crucifixion,  then  there  were 
two  Christs.  The  Apostle  knew  but  one.  Christ,  we  are 
told,  "  suffered  for  us."  According  to  the  doctrine  referred 
to,  this  is  not  true.  Again,  Christ  predicted  that  he  should 
suffer.  It  "  behoved  him  to  suffer,"  he  says.  And  he  pro- 
posed himself  as  an  example  to  his  disciples.  "  If  any  man 
will  come  after  me,"  he  says,  "  let  him  take  up  his  cross  and 
follow  me."  Why,  asks  Irenaeus,  this  exhortation,  if  Christ 
himself  did  not  suffer  ? 

Besides  all  this  and  much  more  in  the  same  strain,  J  we 
have  the  express  assertion  of  Irenseus,  that  Jesus  Christ  suf- 

*  Contra  Ear.,  lib.  ii.  c.  28,  §  6.  t  Ihid.,  lib.  ii.  c.  28,  §  8. 

X  Ibid.,  lib.  iii.  cc.  16,  18. 


TERTULLIAN.  105 

Pered  in  his  superior  nature.  "  Jesus,"  he  says,  "  who  suffered 
for  us  and  dwelt  among  us,  is  the  Logos  of  God."  *  Again, 
the  "  Logos  of  God  became  flesh  and  suffered."!  Again,  the 
"  Word  of  God  when  on  the  cross  prayed  for  his  persecutors 
and  murderers."^  From  the  whole  we  may  infer  that  he  sup- 
posed Christ  to  have  suffered  in  his  most  exalted  nature. §  It 
is  hence  quite  obvious  that  he  did  not  regard  him  as  one  in 
essence  with  God. 

Like  the  old  Fathers  generally,  before  the  time  of  Origen, 
Irenasus  did  not  attribute  to  the  Saviour  a  rational  human  soul, 
but  supposed  that  the  Logos  supplied  the  place  of  it.|| 


Tertullian. 

Hitherto  we  have  been  occupied  with  Greek  writers.  We 
must  now  turn  to  the  Latin  Church,  of  which  the  great  repre- 
sentative man  of  the  period  is  Tertullian.  Tertullian  was  an 
African  by  birth,  and,  according  to  Jerome,^  a  native  of  Car- 
thage, and  son  of  a  Proconsular  centurion.  He  held  the  rank 
of  Presbyter,  but  whether  at  Carthage  or  Rome,  has  been  dis- 
puted.    If  Jerome's  account  be  correct,  that  the  envy  and  ill 

*  Contra  HcEr.,  lib.  i.  c.  9,  §  3.        t  Ibid.,  i.  c.  10,  §  3.       %  Ibid.,  iii.  c.  18,  §  5. 

§  Yet  with  strange  inconsistency  he  speaks  in  one  passage  (hb.  iii.  c.  19, 
§  3)  of  the  Logos  as  quiescent  during  the  crucifixion.  [Here,  however,  the 
old  Latin  version  of  Irenaeus  differs  somewhat  from  the  Greek  as  preserved 
by  Theodoret,  who,  as  has  been  suggested,  may  have  altered  the  expres- 
sions to  conform  them  to  his  own  opinions.  See  Stieren's  note,  in  his  edition 
of  Irenffius,  and  Norton's  Statement  of  Reasons,  3d  edit.,  p.  112,  note.  — Ed.] 

II  Hagenbach  {Text-Book,  etc.,  First  Period,  §  66)  refers  to  Duncker  as  "  en- 
deavoring to  make  it  probable  .  .  .  that  Irenaeus  taught  the  perfect  humanity 
of  Christ  as  regards  the  body,  soul,  and  spirit."  On  many  points  the  Fathers 
are  greatly  deficient  in  precision,  both  of  thought  and  expression.  But  that 
before  the  time  of  Origen,  they  generally,  IreuEeus  not  excepted,  used  language 
which,  according  to  any  reasonable  construction,  teaches  that  the  human 
rational  soul  was  wanting  in  Christ,  appears  to  us  as  undeniable.  Justin,  as 
we  have  seen,  so  tauglit  expressly.  Hagenbach  also  refers  to  Neander.  But 
Neander  (Hist.  Christ.  Dogm.,  p.  197,  Bohn)  expresses  himself  with  hesitation 
in  regard  to  Irenaeus,  diSering  somewhat  from  Duncker.  See  also  his  Aniig- 
nostikus,  p.  477.  In  connection  with  the  error  of  Beryllus,  however,  Neander 
(iffirms  that  the  "  doctrine  of  a  rational  [human]  soul  in  Christ  had  not,  at 
that  time,  been  generally  received,  though  Origen  had  done  much  for  its  de 
relopment."  —  Hist.  Christ.  Dogm.,  pp.  152,  153. 

1  De  Vir.  Illust.,  c.  53. 


106       FATHERS  BETWEEN  JUSTIN  AND  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA. 

usage  of  the  clergy  of  Rome  were  the  cause  of  his  defection 
from  the  Church,  it  would  favor  the  supposition  that,  for  a  time 
at  least,  lie  lived  at  Rome.  He  was,  says  Jerome,  of  an 
"  acrid  and  vehement  temper,"  which,  indeed,  his  writings 
clearly  enough  show.  He  was  rash,  impetuous,  fiery ;  his 
thoughts  are  often  obscure,  and  his  style  harsh,  abrupt,  abound- 
ing in  bold  rhetoric  and  exaggeration,  which  often  increases 
the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  his  precise  meaning.  He  has  had 
his  admirers,  but  many  have  turned  from  his  pages  with  dis- 
gust, finding  there,  as  they  have  thought,  more  nettles  and 
thorns  than  flowers  and  fi'uit.  But,  the  Montanism  of  his 
later  years  notwithstanding,  his  authority  has  always  stood 
high  in  the  Church. 

The  incidents  of  his  life  are  very  imperfectly  known.  Je- 
rome's account  is  brief.  It  speaks  of  the  multitude  of  his 
writings,  many  of  which,  it  asserts,  were  not  even  then  ex- 
tant ;  and  tells  us  that  he  lived  to  a  decrepit  age.  Where 
and  when  he  died  we  are  not  informed.  He  flourished  about 
the  year  200  ;  and  may  have  survived  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
He  is  the  earliest  Latin  Father  whose  writings  are  extant. 

His  testimony  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  as  received  in 
his  time,  is  full  and  explicit.  He  has  transmitted  to  us  three 
creeds,  or  summaries  of  the  belief  of  Christians  in  his  day ;  * 
similar  in  sentiment,  though  differing  somewhat  in  expression. 
All  these  teach  the  supremacy  of  the  Father,  —  a  doctrine,  in 
fact,  which  stands  prominent  in  all  the  writings  of  Tertullian, 
especially  in  his  treatises  against  Hermogenes  and  Praxeas. 
We  might  fill  page  after  page  with  expressions  in  which  it  is 
either  directly  asserted  or  necessarily  implied. 

Tertullian  admits  that  the  Son  is  entitled  to  be  called  God, 
on  the  principle,  that  "whatever  is  born  of  God  is  God,"  just 
as  one  born  of  human  parents  is  human.  He  speaks  of  him 
as  possessing  "unity  of  substance "  with  God;  but  by  this 
ind  similar  phrases,  as  the  learned  well  know,  the  ante-Nicene 
Fathers  never  meant  to  express  a  numerical  unity  of  essence, 

*  De  Vin/inibus  Velandis,  c.  1 ;  De  Prmscrip.  Hceret.,  c.  13 ;  Ado.  Prax.,  c.  2. 
These  and  all  our  references  to  the  writings  of  Tertullian  will  answer  equally 
well  for  tl\e  Paris  editions  of  1646  and  1675,  and  the  recent  edition  by  Leopold 
(Gersdorf ),  which  is  more  convenient  for  consultation  tlian  the  old  editions. 


TERTULLIAN    ON    THE    INFERIORITY    OP    THE    SON.  107 

but  only  a  specific,  that  is,  a  common  nature.  Tims  all  hu- 
man beings,  as  such,  are  of  one  substance :  the  son  is  of  one 
substance  with  the  father.  In  this  sense,  Tertullian  evidently 
uses  the  phrase  in  question,  as  he  immediately  proceeds  to 
explain ;  for,  after  saying  that  the  Son  has  "  unity  of  sub- 
stance "  with  God,  he  adds,  "  For  God  is  spirit  "  ;  and  "  from 
spirit  is  produced  spirit ;  from  God,  God ;  from  light,  light."  * 
Thus  he  supposes  the  Son  to  be  in  some  sort  divine  by  virtue 
of  his  birth,  and  of  one  substance  with  God,  as  he  is  a  spirit, 
and  God  is  spirit.  At  the  same  time,  he  regarded  him  as  a 
different  being  from  the  Father ;  that  is,  numerically  distinct 
from  him.  This  all  his  illustrations  imply  ;  and,  moreover,  he 
expressly  affirms  it.  "  The  Son,"  he  says,  "  is  derived  from 
God,  as  the  branch  from  the  root,  the  stream  from  the  foun- 
tain, the  ray  from  the  sun."  "  The  root  and  the  branch  are 
two  things,  though  conjoined ;  and  the  fountain  and  the  stream 
are  two  species,  though  undivided ;  and  the  sun  and  its  ray 
are  two  forms,  though  cohering."!  And  so,  according  to  him, 
God  and  Christ  are  two  things,  two  species,  two  forms.  Things 
"  conjoined,"  or  "  cohering,"  must  necessarily  be  two.  We 
do  not  use  the  terms  of  one  individual  substance.  Asain : 
referring  to  John  i.  1,  he  says,  "  There  is  one  who  was,  and 
another  with  whom  he  was."  J  Again :  he  observes,  "  The 
Father  is  different  from  the  Son  (another),  as  he  is  greater ; 
as  he  who  begets  is  different  from  him  who  is  begotten ;  he 
who  sends,  different  from  him  who  is  sent;  he  who  does  a 
thing,  different  from  him  through  whom  (as  an  instrument)  it 
is  done."§  Again:  alluding  to  1  Cor.  xv.  27,  28,  he  says, 
"  From  this  passage  of  the  apostolical  Epistle,  it  may  be  shown 
that  the  Father  and  Son  are  two,  not  only  from  a  difference  in 
name,  but  from  the  fact,  that  he  who  delivers  a  kingdom  and 
he  to  whom  it  is  delivered,  he  who  subjects  and  he  who  re- 
ceives in  subjection,  are  necessarily  two."|| 

That  he  regarded  the  Son  as  inferior,  is  evident  from  the 
following  declarations.  He  was  produced  by  the  Father. 
"  The  Lord  created  me,"  as  he  quotes  from  the  Septuagint, 
"the  beginning  of  his  ways"  (Prov.  viii.  22).     Thus  he  waa 

*  Apol  adv.  Gentes,  c.  21.  \  Adv.  Prax.,  c.  8.  t  Ibid.,  c.  13. 

§  Ibid.,  c.  9  11  Ibid.,  c.  4. 


108   FATHERS  BETWEEN  JUSTIN  AND  CLEMENT  OP  ALEXANDRIA, 

the  first  of  all  beings  produced,  "the  beginning  "  of  the  crea- 
tion, the  first  work  of  God,  who,  as  Tertullian  adds,  being 
about  to  form  the  world,  "  produced  the  Word,  that  by  him," 
as  his  instrument,  "  he  might  make  the  universe."  *  "  The 
Father,"  he  says,  "  is  a  whole  substance  ;  the  Son  a  derivation 
and  portion  of  the  whole,  as  he  professes,  saying,  '  The  Father 
is  greater  than  I,'  "f  which  Tertullian  understands  according 
to  the  literal  import  of  the  terms.  He  speaks  of  God  as  the 
"  head  of  Christ,"  and  of  the  latter  as  deriving  all  his  power 
and  titles  from  the  former.  Thus  he  is  "  most  high,  because 
by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  as  Peter  declares  (Acts  ii. 
33),  Lord  of  hosts,  because  all  things  are  subjected  to  him  by 
the  Father."  J  He  "  does  nothing  except  by  the  will  of  the 
Father,  having  received  all  power  from  him."§  And  hence, 
TertulHan  contends,  the  supremacy  of  the  Father,  or  mon- 
archy, as  he  calls  it,  which  the  innovations  of  the  learned 
Platonizing  Christians  were  thought  by  the  more  simple  and 
unlettered  to  impau',  is  preserved ;  the  Son  having  received 
from  the  Father  the  kingdom,  which  he  is  hereafter  to  restore. 

Tertullian,  though  he  admits  the  preexistence  of  the  Son, 
expressly  denies  his  eternity.  "  There  was  a  time,"  he  tells 
us,  "when  the  Son  was  not."||  Again:  "Before  all  things, 
God  was  alone,  himself  a  world  and  place,  and  all  things  to 
himself."  That  is,  as  he  explains  it,  nothing  existed  without 
or  beyond  himself.  "  Yet  he  was  not  alone  ;  for  he  had  his 
own  reason,  which  was  in  himself,  with  him.  For  God  is 
rational,"  a  being  endued  with  reason.^ 

This  reason,  or  Logos,  as  it  was  called  by  the  Greeks,  was 
afterwards,  as  Tertullian  believed,  converted  into  the  Word, 
or  Son,  that  is,  a  real  being,  having  existed  from  eternity  only 
as  an  attribute  of  the  Father.  Tertullian  assigned  to  him, 
however,  a  rank  subordinate  to  the  Father ;  representing  him 
as  deriving  from  the  Father  his  being  and  power,  subject  in  all 
things  to  his  will,  and  one  with  him  as  he  partook  of  a  similar 
spiritual  and  divine  nature,  and  was  united  with  him  in  affec- 
tion and  purpose.**     The  Father,  he  says,  is  "  more  ancient, 

*  Adv.  Prax.,  cc.  6,  7.  t  Ibid.,  c.  9.  t  Ibid.,  c.  17. 

§  Ibid.,  c.  4.  II  Adv.  Hermog.,  c.  3.  Tf  Adv.  Prax.,  c.  6. 

**  Ibid.,  c.   22.     "  With  respect  to  Wisdom   and  the   Son,   Sophia  and 


TEBTULLIAN.  109 

nobler,  and  more  powerful  than  the  Son."*  This  is  one  of 
the  passages  selected  for  animadversion  by  the  learned  Jes- 
uit Petavius,  who  speaks  of  the  writer  in  terms  of  strong 
censure,  making  him  exceed  the  Arians  in  "  impiety  and 
absurdity."  f 

We  might  multiply  our  quotations  without  number,  but  it 
is  unnecessary.  Judged  according  to  any  received  explana- 
tion of  the  Trinity  at  the  present  day,  the  attempt  to  save 
Tertullian  from  condemnation  would  be  hopeless.  He  could 
not  stand  the  test  a  moment.  His  creeds,  compared  with 
those  of  subsequent  times,  are  particularly  defective.  Here 
is  one  of  them,  very  much  resembling  the  Apostles'  Creed 
in  its  more  ancient  and  simple  form  :  "  We  believe  in  one 
only  Grod,  omnipotent,  Maker  of  the  world ;  and  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  crucified  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  raised  from  the  dead  the  third  day,  received  into  the 
heavens,  now  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and 
who  shall  come  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead  through  the 
resurrection  of  the  flesh. "J 

This,  Tertullian  gives  as  the  one  only  fixed  and  unalterable 
"rule  of  faith."  But  this  is  no  Trinitarian  creed.  The  Fa- 
ther and  Son  are  clearly  distinguished,  and  the  supremacy  of 
the  Father  is  preserved.  Not  one  word  is  said  of  the  Spirit, 
though  the  writer  afterwards  mentions  it,  explaining  it  as 
"  vicarious,"  that  is,  in  the  place  of  Christ ;  referring  to  the 
words  of  Jesus  (John  xvi.  13),  which  he  quotes.  Nothing  is 
said  of  its  personality ;  which,  indeed,  is  plainly  excluded. 
One  desires  nothing  more  liberal  than  the  creed  of  this  old 
Father. 

Besides  the  omission  of  the  Spirit  in  that  here  given,  there 
is  no  mention  in  it  of  Chi'ist's  "  descent  into  hell,"  of  the 
"holy  Catholic  Church,"  the  "communion  of  saints,"  or  the 

Filius,"  says  Bishop  Kaye,  "  Tertullian  assigns  to  both  a  beginning  of  exist- 
ance :  Sophia  was  created  or  formed,  in  order  to  devise  the  plan  of  the  uni- 
verse ;  and  the  Son  was  begotten  in  order  to  carry  that  plan  into  effect." 
Again,  by  making  matter  self  existent  and  eternal,  Hermogenes,  as  Tertullian 
argued,  "  placed  it  above  the  Word  or  Wisdom ;  who,  as  begotten  of  God, 
had  both  an  author  and  beginning  of  his  being."  —  Writings  of  Tertullian, 
pp.  523,  535,  3d  edit. 

*  Adv.  Hermog.,  c.  18.  t  Dogm.  TheoL,  hb.  ii.  c.  1,  §  5. 

X  De  Virg.  Vdand.,  c.  1. 


110      FATHERS   BETWEEN  JUSTIN  AND  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA 

"remission  of  sins,"  which  appear  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  in 
its  present  form.  So  brief  were  the  older  creeds.  Here  is 
one,  composed  about  the  end  of  the  second  century,  which 
is  shorter  and  simpler  than  the  so-called  Apostles'  Creed. 
Tertullian  does  not  admit  that  the  corruption  of  man's  nature 
is  "  total,"  or  that  the  seeds  of  good  are  altogether  extinguished 
in  it.  "  There  is  a  portion  of  God,"  he  says,  "  in  the  soul. 
In  the  worst,  there  is  something  good ;  and  in  the  best,  some- 
thing bad :  "  and  he  speaks  of  infancy  as  the  "  age  of  inno- 
cence.    * 

We  cannot  pass  over  without  notice  a  very  remarkable 
passage  in  the  writings  of  Tertullian,  which  has  been  adduced 
to  pi'ove  that  the  great  bulk  of  Christians  in  his  time  were  not 
believers  in  the  doctrine  held  by  the  Platonizing  Fathers,  relat- 
ing to  the  nature  and  rank  of  the  Son.  It  certainly  has  an 
important  bearing  on  the  question,  as  to  what  plain,  unlettered 
Christians  at  that  day  believed,  or  rather  did  not  believe,  re- 
specting the  nature  of  the  Son.  But  on  this  question  we  do 
not  touch.  We  have  another  object  in  quoting  the  passage, 
which  is,  to  show  by  attention  to  Tertullian's  reasoning  how 
he  disposed  of  the  objection,  that  he  and  others  who  thought 
with  him  made  two  Gods  ;  how  they  reconciled  their  teach- 
ings with  the  Divine  Unity.  The  party  of  Tertullian,  it  must 
be  remembered,  had  adopted  the  word  "  CEconomy,"  an  ob- 
scure term,  which  they  applied  to  the  relations  of  God  with 
the  Son  and  Spirit,  or  to  the  Trinity  as  it  was  then  understood. 
This  perplexed  the  unlettered  Christians,  as  well  it  might. 

"  The  simple,"  says  Tertullian,  "  not  to  say  the  unskilful 
and  unlearned,  who  always  constitute  the  greater  part  of  be- 
lievers, since  the  rule  of  faith  itself  transfers  their  worship  of 
many  Gods  to  the  one  only  and  true  God,  not  understanding 
that  the  unity  (of  God)  is  to  be  believed,  but  with  the  vecono- 
my^  are  frightened  at  this  oeconomy.  This  number  and  dis- 
position of  the  Trinity  they  regard  as  a  division  of  the  unity. 
,  .  .  Thus  they  declare  that  we  proclaim  two  or  three  Gods ; 
but  they,  they  affirm,  worship  only  one.  .  .  ,  We,  say  they, 
Aold    the   monarchy.  .  .  .  The    Latins    shout   aloud    for   the 

*  De  Anima,  c.  41 ;  De  Baptismo,  c.  18.    "  Original  goodness,"  says  Neander 
"  he  held  to  be  indelible."  —  Hist.  Christ.  Dogm.,  p.  184. 


TEETULLIAN.  Ill 

monarchy;    and  the   Greeks  will  not  understand  the  oecon- 
omy.    * 

How  does  Tertullian  reply?  Monarchy,  he  says,  is  one 
rule  or  dominion,  but  may  be  administered  through  many  offi- 
cials ;  or  the  monarch  may  associate  his  son  with  him,  all 
power  still  emanating  from  him.  The  monarchy  then  re- 
mains. So  with  the  divine  monarchy.  Around  the  throne 
of  the  heavenly  king  may  stand  "  ten  thousand  times  ten 
thousand,  and  thousands  of  thousands,  of  angels  executing  his 
commands.  But  that  does  not  destroy  the  monarchy.  And 
how  can  we  say  that  it  is  destroyed,  if,  instead  of  these  angels 
whom  no  man  can  number,  who  are  of  a  nature  foreign  to 
him,  he  employs  the  Son  and  Spirit:,  who  are  second  and  third 
to  him,  and  of  a  similar  nature  as  begotten  of  his  substance  ?  " 
Tertullian  then  proceeds  to  say  that  the  Son  does  "  nothing 
without  the  Father's  will,"  —  that  all  his  "power  was  received 
from  the  Father  "  who  granted  it,  that  as  the  Son  receives  all, 
"  the  Father  subjecting  all  things  to  him,"  he  shall  in  the  end 
'■'-restore  all,"  delivering  up  all  to  the  Father,  to  whom  "he 
shall  also  himself  be  subjected,"  that  God  may  be  "all  in  all."f 
So  the  monarchy  is  not  overthrown,  saj^s  Tertullian.  True. 
But  what  becomeg  of  Christ's  supreme  divinity  and  of  his 
numerical  identity  with  the  Father?  They  are  excluded. 
Thus  Tertullian  could  find  no  other  unity  than  this,  —  The 
Son  was  of  Divine  origin,  and  his  will  always  harmonized  with 
the  will  of  the  Father,  —  which  is  no  unity  at  all  in  the  later 
Athanasian  sense.  Well  might  Tertullian  explain  the  cele- 
brated text,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one  "  (John  x.  30),  as 
meaning  "  one  thing,  not  one  person,  the  neuter  gender  being 
used."  It  "  pertains,"  he  says,  "  only  to  unity  of  affection,  to 
the  love  which  the  Father  bore  to  the  Son,  and  the  obedience 
of  the  Son  who  did  the  Father's  will,"  making  himself,  "  not 
God  himself,  but  the  Son  of  God. "J  But  here  is  no  homoou- 
sian  Trinity. 

We  may  observe,  in  conclusion,  that  Tertullian  has  been 
supposed,  like  the  older  Christian  Fathers  generally,  to  have 
believed  that  Christ  did  not  possess  a  human  rational  soul,  the 
Logos  supplying  its  place.     And  from  the  language  he  some- 

*  Adv.  Prax.,  c.  3.         t  Ibid.,  cc.  3,  4.     See  also  c.  13.  }  Ibid.,  c.  22. 


112   FATHERS  BETWEEN  JUSTIN  AND  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA. 

times  employs,  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  this  inference.  Neander 
rejects  it,  and  says  that  this  Father  "  is  the  first  writer  by 
whom  a  perfect  human  nature  consisting  of  body  and  soul  is 
distinctly  asserted."  * 

But  "  of  the  eternal  generation  —  eternal  personality  of  the 
Son,  and  numerical  unity  of  being  of  the  Father  and  Son," 
in  the  language  of  Martini,  "  he  knew  nothing,  and  so  there 
was  between  his  and  the  Athanasian  orthodoxy  a  wide  gulf 
fixed."  t 

We  cannot  close  this  chapter  without  adding  a  word  re 
specting  the  class  of  Christians  to  which  Tertullian  refers  — 
the  common  and  uneducated.  It  has  often  occurred  to  us,  as 
these  pages  containing  notices  of  the  early  Fathers  have  been 
passing  through  the  press,  to  ask  ourselves  where,  all  this  time, 
were  these  simple  and  unlearned  Christians,  and  what  were 
their  thoughts  and  feelings  ?  How  did  the  abstruse  contro- 
versies  and  sublimated  speculations  with  which  the  more 
learned  and  philosophical  church  teachers  and  writers  were 
occupying  themselves,  affect  the  minds  of  the  plain  and  un- 
educated men  and  women  of  the  day  ?  Did  they  concern 
themselves  at  all  about  them  ?  We  are  inclined  to  think 
that  persons  of  this  class  in  the  early  ages  took  very  little  in- 
terest in  these  speculations  and  controversies,  —  that,  when 
they  did  interest  themselves  in  them,  urging  objections  and 
uttering  remonstrances,  it  was  the  exception  and  not  the  rule. 
What  cared  they  for  Marcion,  and  Valentinus,  and  Basilides, 
and  Manes,  and  Praxeas,  and  Hermogenes,  and  Sabellius,  and 

*  Hist.  Christ.  Dogm.,  p.  199,  Bohn  ;  Antignostikus,  p.  477.  So  also  Hagen- 
bach,  Text-Book,  etc.,  First  Period,  §  66.  See  Tert.  Adv.  Pra.r.,  cc.  16,  27 ; 
De  Came  Christi,  cc.  11-13,  and  18.  Origen  strenuously  argues  tlie  necessity 
of  a  human  soul  as  well  as  body  in  Christ,  and  his  argument  finally  tri- 
umphed. 

t  Versiich,  etc.,  p.  110.  Schwegler,  as  quoted  by  Hagenbach  (First  Per., 
§  42),  s.ays,  "  We  find  in  Tertullian,  on  the  one  hand,  the  efl^ort  to  hold  fast 
the  entire  equality  of  the  Father  and  the  Son;  —  on  the  other  hand,  the 
inequality  is  so  manifestly  conceded,  or  presupposed,  it  is  everywhere  ex- 
pressed in  so  marked  and,  as  it  were,  involuntary  a  way,  and  it  strikes  its 
roots  so  deeply  into  his  whole  system  and  modes  of  expression,  that  it  must 
doubtless  be  considered  as  the  real  and  inmost  conception  of  TertuUian's  sys- 
tem." —  [See  Schwegler's  Montanismus,  p.  41.  —  Ed.] 


THE   CATACOMBS.  113 

Paul  of  Saraosata,  and  the  rest,  who  gave  the  Fathers  such 
infinite  trouble,  lighting  up  controversies  which  for  ages  were 
not  extinct  ? 

For  the  most  beautiful  and  affecting  evidences  of  the  prac- 
tical character  ar>d  ennobling  influences  of  the  religion  of  the 
Son  of  Mary  we  must  turn,  not  to  the  folios  of  the  Fathers, 
or  acts  of  councils  engaged  in  defining  dark  and  subtile  points 
of  theology,  but  to  the  remains  of  early  Christian  art  in  the 
Catacombs  in  and  about  Rome.  These  served  as  a  refuge  and 
a  sanctuary  to  the  ancient  church  in  times  of  persecution,  and 
a  place  of  burial  for  their  dead  long  after  the  days  of  Tertul- 
lian.  Since  the  opening  of  the  Catacombs,  in  modern  times, 
numerous  slabs  and  tiles  containing  inscriptions  have  been 
taken  out  and  brought  into  the  light  of  day.  Many  of  them 
have  been  inserted  in  the  walls  of  the  "  Lapidarian  Gallery," 
in  the  Vatican,  where  the  inscriptions  and  epitaphs  may  be 
read  by  all  eyes.  They  are  records  of  faith  and  affection,  not 
of  theology.  For  the  most  part  they  contain  only  the  baptis- 
mal name,  and  the  words,  often  misspelt,  and  the  letters  irreg- 
ular, were  evidently  written  by  the  "  unlettered  muse."  They 
clearly  belong  to  the  simple  and  uneducated  Christians,  —  not 
to  the  learned,  but  to  the  unlearned,  —  not  to  those  who  wrote 
ponderous  tomes  of  theology,  and  wrangled  in  councils,  but  to 
humble  believers  —  the  class  to  whom  TertulHan  refers.  The 
"  Fathers  of  the  Church,"  it  has  been  remarked,  "  live  in 
their  voluminous  works  ;  the  lower  orders  are  only  represented 
by  these  simple  records,  from  which,  with  scarcely  an  excep- 
tion, sorrow  and  complaint  are  banished ;  the  boast  of  suffer- 
ing, or  an  appeal  to  the  revengeful  passions,  is  nowhere  to  be 
found.  One  expresses  faith,  another  hope,  a  third  charity. 
The  genius  of  primitive  Christianity  —  to  believe,  to  love,  and 
to  suffer  —  has  never  been  better  illustrated.  These  '  ser- 
mons in  stones '  are  addressed  to  the  heart  and  not  to  the  head 
—  to  the  feelings  rather  than  to  the  taste."  * 

The  epitaphs  and  inscriptions  thus  disinterred,  of  these  old 
Christians,  possess,  indeed,  a  touching  beauty  and  simplicity. 
Some  of  them  are  traced  back  to  the  end  of  the  first  or  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century,  and  constitute  almost  the  onlji 
*  Maitland's  Church  in  the  Catacombs,  p.  13.     London,  1846. 


114      FATHERS   BETWEEN  JUSTIN  AND  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA 

authentic  monument  of  the  period  which  remains.  The  name 
of  Christ,  or  its  monogram,  perpetually  appears ;  often  the 
good  shepherd  ;  and  the  cross,  either  alone,  or  accompanied 
with  the  emblematic  crown  or  palm,  is  everywhere  met. 

Such  was  the  religion  of  the  unlettered  Christians ;  and 
these  rude  epitaphs  and  memorials  many  will  think  of  more 
value  than  all  the  controversial  divinity  of  the  Fathers ;  and 
the  triumphs  of  patience,  gentleness,  and  love  which  they 
record  did  more  for  the  establishment  of  Christianity  on  the 
ruins  of  Pao-anism  than  all  the  writings  of  the  learned  con- 
verts.  The  subtleties  of  controversialists  have  no  charm  by 
the  side  of  these  artless  -records  of  faith  and  affection.  It  is 
refreshing  to  turn  from  Tertullian  and  the  rest,  with  their 
disputes  about  the  "  oeconomy  "  and  the  "  Logos  "  produced 
in  time  or  before  time,  to  the  relics  of  these  simple  believers, 
spoken  of  almost  with  contempt  by  the  Fathers  in  their  pride 
and  conceit  of  learning.  A  fragment  of  one  of  these  primi- 
tive epitaphs  is  worth  more  than  a  whole  treatise  of  the  old 
Latin  Father  who  has  stood  before  us. 


CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  AND  HIS  TIMES. 


CHAPTER  L 

Martyrdoms  after  that  of  Justin.  —  Time  of  Clement.  —  Alexan 
DRiA.  —  Biography  of  Clement.  —  Pant^nus.  —  Clement's  Conver- 
sion.—  Becomes  Head  of  the  Catechetical  School  of  Alexandria. 
—  Was  there  in  211.  —  Disappears  from  History. — Direction  of 
Studies  in  the  Alexandrian  School.  —  Clement's  Writings.  —  His 
Hortatory  Address. 

We  have  been  thus  far  occupied,  in  great  part,  with  the  life 
and  opinions,  and  especially  the  theological  opinions,  of  Justin 
Martyr,  who  lived  mostly  in  Palestine  and  at  Rome  where  he 
suffered.  We  must  now  ask  our  readers  to  accompany  us  to 
the  land  of  the  Pharaohs,  —  whither  "  the  young  child  "  Jesus 
and  "his  mother"  went,  —  and  to  Alexandria,  its  capital. 
The  time  is  about  the  year  200,  that  is,  two  centuries  after 
the  infant  Jesus  was  there.  What  a  revolution  had  these  two 
centuries  brought  about !  Fifty  years  nearly  have  elapsed 
since  Justin's  death.  During  these  fifty  years  the  relations 
of  Christians  to  the  State,  and  the  intense  popular  hatred 
against  them,  had  little  changed.  They  remained  very  much 
as  described  at  the  time  of  Justin's  death. 

The  martyrdoms  under  the  second  Antonine,  Marcus  Au- 
relius  the  philosopher,  embraced,  besides  that  of  Justin,  those 
of  the  aged  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  the  martyrs  of  Vienne  and 
Lyons  in  Gaul,  and  others.  Marcus  passed  away  in  a.  d.  180, 
and  with  him  ended  the  golden  days  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
His  successors,  most  of  them,  had  a  short  reign.  "  They  flit- 
ted," says  the  historian,  "  like  shadows  along  the  tragic  scene 
of  the  imperial  palace,"  —  "Africans  and  Syrians,  Arabs  and 
Thracians," — seizing,  in  turn,  "the  quickly  shifting  sceptre 


116  CLEMENT   OF   ALEXANDRIA. 

of  the  world."  Septimius  Severus  obtained  the  purple  in  193 ; 
and  the  cruel  Caracalla,  in  211,  —  his  reign  ending  with  his 
death  in  217.  Clement,  the  subject  of  our  present  notice, 
flourished  under  the  reigns  of  the  two  last-named  emperors,  — 
Septimius  and  Caracalla,  —  that  is,  between  the  years  193  and 
217.  Like  Justin,  he  was  a  learned  man,  —  the  more  schol- 
arly of  the  two  ;  like  him,  too,  he  was  born  and  bred  in 
heathenism,  and  was  an  adept  in  philosophy  before  he  became 
a  Christian  ;  —  his  place,  Alexandria  in  Egypt. 

Alexandria  was  at  this  time  the  seat  of  learning  and  refine- 
ment, of  wealth  and  luxury,  and  the  centre  of  the  commerce 
of  the  world.  Here  we  meet  the  Jewish,  the  Oriental,  and 
the  Grecian  culture,  mingled  with  the  old  Egyptian  supersti- 
tions, —  all  combined  in  bitter  opposition  to  the  religion  of 
the  Son  of  Mary,  now  grown  to  be  a  thing  of  might  and  sig- 
nificance. Here  had  lived  and  taught  the  learned  Philo. 
Here  was  the  celebrated  school  of  the  later  Platonists.  Here, 
too,  was  the  great  library  of  the  ancient  world,  containing,  it 
is  said,  four  hundred  thousand  volumes.  Learning  was  now 
passing  over  to  the  Christians.  Here  was  their  great  school 
of  theology.  Here  now  was  Clement ;  and,  soon  after,  the 
more  famous  Origen,  a  prodigy  of  learning,  and  a  great  genius. 
Here,  in  the  city  of  Alexander,  was  now  congregated  all  that 
was  elevated  and  all  that  was  vile,  all  that  could  command 
reverence  and  all  that  could  inspire  disgust,  —  high,  dreamy 
mysticism  on  one  side,  and  the  coarsest  profligacy  on  the 
other. 

The  biography  of  Clement  must,  from  poverty  of  materials, 
be  of  the  briefest  kind.  We  will  state  what  is  known  of  him ; 
then  look  a  little  at  his  arguments  for  the  truth  of  Christian- 
ity ;  at  his  theology,  which  was  not  Trinitarian  ;  at  the  private 
and  social  life  of  the  Alexandrians  of  his  day,  so  far  as  it  can 
be  gathered  firom  his  writings ;  and  at  Clement's  idea  or  con- 
ception of  the  perfect  Christian. 

Titus  Flavins  Clemens  was  his  whole  name.  So  far  as  his 
personal  history  is  concerned,  he  is  little  more  than  a  shadow 
seen  through  the  dim  mist  of  ages.  A  few  lines  will  tell  all 
that  can  be  gleaned  concerning  it  fi*om  himself,  Eusebius,  Jer- 
ome, and  other  sources.    Eusebius  the  historian,  who  was  inti- 


HIS   BIOGRAPHY.  117 

mately  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Christian  antiquity, 
many  of  which  are  now  lost,  wrote  in  the  earher  part  of  the 
fourth  century ;  and  Jerome,  who  was  universally  learned, 
flourished  at  the  end  of  the  same  century.  The  latter,  in  his 
book  on  "  Illustrious  Men,"  devotes  but  part  of  a  page  to 
Clement  and  his  writings ;  and  the  former  is  scarcely  more 
copious ;  so  completely  had  the  materials  for  anything  like  a 
biography  of  him  perished  even  in  their  day.  That  he  lived 
and  wrote  in  the  times  of  Severus  and  Caracalla  (that  is,  at 
the  end  of  the  second  and  beginning  of  the  third  century),  is 
asserted  by  Jerome ;  but  the  time  of  his  birth  and  death  he 
does  not  tell  us,  and  probably  did  not  know,  and  history  has 
preserved  no  recoi^d  of  it.  The  place  of  his  birth  is  equally 
uncertain.  Both  Athens  and  Alexandria  are  mentioned  by 
different  writers,  but  on  no  better  ground  than  conjecture. 
We  have  the  authority  of  Eusebius  for  saying  that  he  was  a 
convert  from  Heathenism.  Plis  great  Christian  teacher  was 
Pantasnus.  To  him  he  is  supposed  to  refer  when,  in  his 
"  Stromata,"  speaking  of  his  instructors,  after  enumerating 
several,  —  as  (if  we  understand  him,  for  the  passage  is  some- 
what obscure)  one  in  Greece,  one  in  Italy,  the  former  from 
Coele-Syria,  the  latter  from  Egypt ;  besides  two  more,  one  an 
Assyrian,  and  the  other  a  native  of  Palestine,  by  descent  a 
Hebrew,  —  he  says  that  the  last  with  whom  he  met  was  the 
first  in  merit ;  that  he  found  him  concealed  in  Egypt ;  and, 
having  discovered  him,  he  desisted  from  further  search.  Of 
him  he  was  a  great  admirer.  "  He  was,"  says  Clement,  "in 
truth,  a  Sicilian  bee,  who,  cropping  the  flowers  of  the  pro- 
phetic and  apostolic  meadow,  caused  a  pure  knowledge  to  grow 
up  in  the  minds  of  his  hearers."  * 

Whether  he  became  a  convert  to  Christianity  before  or 
after  his  acquaintance  with  Pantsenus,  he  does  not  distinctly 
inform  us.  We  infer,  however,  that  he  owed  his  conversion, 
in  part  at  least,  to  him.  One  thing  is  certain,  —  that,  after 
ranging  over  all  the  systems  of  ancient  religion  and  philosophy, 
he  became  a  Christian,  abandoning  the  "  sinful  service  of 
Paganism  for  the  faith  of  the  Redeemer,"  at  the  age  of  man- 
hood, and  in  the  full  exercise  of  a  free  and  inquiring  mind ; 
*  Stromata,  lib.  i.  c.  1 ;  0pp.,  t.  i.  p.  322,  ed.  Potter. 


118  CLEMENT    OF   ALEXANDRIA. 

and  thus,  like  Justin,  he  furnishes  an  example  of  a  learned 
convert,  who  became  a  disciple  of  the  cross  from  conviction, 
in  the  prime  and  vigor  of  his  faculties.  No  man  that  ever 
lived  was  better  acquainted  with  the  ancient  heathen  religions, 
philosophy,  and  mythology,  than  Clement ;  yet  he  gave  up  all 
for  the  simple  teaching  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  in  which  he 
found  the  only  religion  that  satisfied  his  intellect,  and  encour- 
aged his  soul's  best  and  highest  aspirations. 

Of  his  teachers  he  preserved  an  ever-grateful  recollection  ; 
and  in  one  of  his  principal  works,  the  "  Stromata,"  he  records, 
as  he  tells  us,  what  he  learned  from  them  as  an  antidote 
against  forgetfixlness,  and  a  treasure  against  old  age.  They 
received  it  by  tradition,  he  says,  from  the  Apostles  Peter, 
James,  John,  and  Paul.  He  became,  first,  assistant,  and 
afterwards  successor,  of  Pantsenus,  in  the  Catechetical  or 
Theological  School  at  Alexandria,  and  was  presbyter  of  the 
church  there.  He  would  seem  to  have  left  Alexandria  during 
the  persecution  under  Septimius  Severus,  about  202.  It  is 
certain  that  he  was  at  Jerusalem,  visiting  the  hallowed  spots 
there,  early  in  the  reign  of  Caracalla ;  whence  he  took  a  com- 
mendatory letter,  a  fragment  of  which  is  preserved  by  Euse- 
bius,  to  the  Christians  of  Antioch.  In  the  letter  he  is  spoken 
of  as  already  known  to  them  of  Antioch.  He  returned  to 
Alexandria,  and  was  head  of  the  school  there  in  211.  He 
then  vanishes  from  our  sight.  How  or  where  he  died,  it  is  in 
vain  to  search.     It  was  not  many  years  after. 

In  philosophy,  Clement  was  an  eclectic.  "  I  espoused," 
i  says  he,  "  not  this  or  that  philosophy,  not  the  Stoic,  not  the 
Platonic,  not  the  Epicurean,  not  that  of  Aristotle,  but  what- 
ever any  of  these  sects  had  said  which  was  fit  and  just,  wdiich 
taught  righteousness  and  a  divine  and  religious  knowledge,  — 
all  that,  being  selected,  I  call  philosophy." 

His  studies  took  direction  from  his  position  and  the  demands 
of  the  age.  The  school  of  Alexandria,  in  his  time,  required 
learned  teachers  who  had  received  a  philosophical  education, 
and  were  acquainted  with  the  Grecian  religion  and  culture. 
For  they  had  not  simply  to  teach  the  young  the  elements  of 
the  Christian  faith :  they  were  surrounded  by  learned  Pagans, 
some  of  whom  frequented  the  school ;    and  with  these  they 


CHRISTIANITY   AND    GRECIAN    LEARNING.  119 

must  discuss  great  questions  in  a  manner  to  satisfy  the  specu- 
lative and  wisdom-loving  Greeks.  If  the  Jews  required  a 
sign,  the  Greeks  sought  after  wisdom.  They  were  specula- 
tive; they  could  not  be  treated  as  babes.  Hence  the  spec- 
ulative turn  which  Christian  studies  took  in  the  Alexandrian 
school.  Here,  properly.  Christian  theology  first  sprang  up. 
Here  was  the  great  battle-field  of  the  old  and  the  new,  — 
Heathenism  and  Christianity.  Here  it  was,  as  before  said,  that 
the  faith  of  Jesus  —  two  hundred  years  after  Joseph,  taking 
"  the  young  child  and  his  mother  by  night,"  went  down  with 
them  as  fugitives  into  Egypt  —  was  brought  into  conflict,  hand 
to  hand,  with  all  the  religions,  and  all  the  philosophy,  and  all 
the  traditions,  of  the  then  ancient  world ;  and,  time-hallowed 
as  they  were,  and  defended  by  the  ablest  men,  and  sustained 
by  court  influence  and  the  whole  weight  of  the  imperial 
power,  they  all  fell  before  the  vigorous  blows  of  such  cham- 
pions of  the  cross  as  Clement,  Origen  of  the  adamantine  arm, 
and  others.  As  to  the  necessity  of  learning  in  the  Christian 
teachers  of  Alexandria,  we  may  hear  what  Clement  himself 
says.  There  is  much  truth  in  what  he  asserts :  "  He  who 
would  gather  from  every  quarter  what  would  be  for  the  profit 
of  the  catechumens,  especially  if  they  are  Greeks,  must  not, 
like  irrational  brutes,  be  shy  of  much  learning ;  but  he  must 
seek  to  collect  around  him  every  possible  means  of  helping  his 
hearers." 

Eusebius,  in  the  sixth  book  of  his  History,*  and  Jerome,  in 
his  short  account  of  "  Illustrious  Men,"  have  left  us  a  cata- 
logue of  Clement's  writings  ;  apparently,  however,  incomplete. 
Of  these,  some  are  lost ;  f  but  we  have  still  the  "  Hortatory 

*  Cap.  13. 

t  Of  these,  the  work  entitled  "  Hypotyposes,"  in  eight  books,  is  particularly 
to  be  regretted,  on  account  of  tlie  historical  information  which,  according  to 
Eusebius,  it  contained;  particularly  an  abridged  account  of  the  canonical 
writings  of  the  New  Testament,  together  with  tliose  then  considered  as  of 
doubtful  genuineness ;  as  the  Book  of  Jude  and  the  other  Catholic  Epistles, 
as  also  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  and  Revelation  of  Peter.  The  tradition  relat 
ing  to  the  order  in  which  the  Gospels  were  written ;  to  the  origin,  in  particu- 
lar, of  Mark's  Gospel;  and  the  ])urpose  of  John  in  writing  his,  —  is  given  by 
Eusebius  as  a  quotation  from  the  "  Hypotyposes."  From  the  same  source  it 
appears  tliat  Clement  asserted  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written  by 
Paul  in  Hebrew,  and  translated  by  Luke  (Euseb.  Hist.,  lib.  vi.  c.  14;  also 


120  CLEMENT    OP    ALEXANDRIA. 

Address  to  tlie  Greeks,"  the  "  PaBdagogue,"  the  "  Stromata," 
and  a  httle  tract  entitled,  "  Who  is  the  Rich  Man  that  sliall 
be  Saved  ? "  besides  a  few  inconsiderable  fragments  of  other 
works.  The  hymn  appended  to  his  works  is,  to  say  the  least, 
of  doubtful  genuineness. 

The  "  Hortatory  Address,"  in  one  book,  is  designed  to 
recommend  Christianity  to  the  reception  of  the  heathen. 
Like  the  other  pi'oductions  of  Clement,  and  most  of  the  pro- 
ductions of  the  Fathers,  it  is  written  with  very  little  attention 
to  method.  It  is  not  what  would  now  be  called  a  systematic 
defence  of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity ;  yet  it  contains 
many  forcible  and  striking  thoughts,  some  strains  of  elevated 
sentiment,  and  some  vigorous  and  animated  passages,  which 
may  even  now  be  read  with  pleasure  and  profit.  It  was  no 
difficult  task  for  Clement,  familiar  as  he  was  with  the  mytho- 
logical fables  of  antiquity,  to  expose  the  absurdity  of  the  old 
superstitions.  The  comparison  of  Christianity  with  Paganism 
in  regard  to  their  pervading  spirit  and  tendencies,  and  espe- 
cially with  reference  to  the  great  principles  of  piety  and 
morality,  could  not  fail  of  demonstrating  the  immense  superi- 
ority of  the  former.  Of  this,  Clement  and  the  early  apologists 
were  fully  aware ;  and  accordingly  they  insist  very  much  on 
what  may  be  called  the  moral  alignment  for  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity. This  they  evidently  felt  to  be  their  strong  point ;  at 
least,  it  was  one  which,  in  consequence  of  the  peculiar  belief 
of  the  age,  they  could  urge  with  more  effect  than  any  other ; 
not  even  excepting  that  of  miracles,  the  reality  of  which  no 
one  thought  of  questioning,  but  which,  as   it  was   supposed, 

lib.  ii.  c.  15).  The  work,  no  doubt,  embodied  several  traditions  ■which  it 
would  be  desirable  to  possess.  It  contained,  according  to  Photius,  some 
errors  of  doctrine,  or  what  in  his  time  were  esteemed  such.  In  it,  he  says, 
Clement  makes  the  Son  a  creature ;  matter  he  represents  as  eternal ;  and  he 
asserts  the  doctrine  of  the  transmigration  of  souls,  and  says  that  there  was  a 
succession  of  worlds  before  Adam.  These  and  several  other  doctrines  which 
he  enumerates,  Photius  says,  Clement  attempted  to  defend  by  quotations  from 
the  Scriptures.  That  Clement  might  have  held  these,  and  other  views  men- 
tioned by  Photius,  however  some  admirers  of  the  Fathers  may  be  shocked  at 
the  thought,  is  by  no  means  improbable,  as  they  are  found  among  that  assem- 
blage of  philosophical  opinions  which  obtained  a  ready  reception  in  the  school 
of  Alexandria  in  the  time  of  Clement;  and  many  of  which,  as  his  writings 
show,  he  incorporated  into  his  theology. 


HIS    DEFENCE    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  121 

might  be  attributed  to  magic  or  theurgic  art,  and  therefore 
furnished  no  decisive  criterion  of  a  revelation. 

Many  of  the  arguments  employed  by  the  Fathers  in  defence 
of  Christianity  —  and  by  Clement  among  the  rest — appear 
to  us,  at  the  present  day,  altogether  futile  or  irrelevant.  But 
we  must  recollect  the  sort  of  minds  they  addressed,  and  the 
peculiar  prejudices  they  were  compelled  to  combat.  We  must 
go  back  to  their  times,  and  make  ourselves  familiar  with  the 
intellectual  character  and  habits  of  those  by  whom  they  were 
surrounded,  and  for  whose  benefit  they  wrote.  Until  we  do 
this,  we  are  not  in  a  condition  to  do  justice  to  their  merits. 
Trains  of  reasoning,  which  would  have  no  weight  with  us, 
might  be  convincing  at  that  day ;  and  faults  of  taste,  a  ram- 
bling method,  specimens  of  unsound  criticism  and  interpre- 
tation, violent  and  far-fetched  analogies,  and  instances  of 
credulity  and  superstition,  which  would  doom  a  modern  per- 
formance to  neglect,  would  give  little  offence  in  an  age  unac- 
customed to  much  order  and  precision  in  thinking  and  writing, 
and  abounding  in  all  sorts  of  extravagant  opinions. 


122  CLEMENT   OF   ALEXANDRIA 


CHAPTER  II. 

Clement's  Theology.  —  He  does  not  ascribe  to  the  Son  a  Distinct 
Personal  Subsistence  from  Eternity.  —  Makes  him  originally  an 
Attribute.  —  Asserts  his  Inferiority  in  Strong  Terms.  —  Antiq- 
uity OP  Christianity.  —  Inspiration  of  Plato  and  the  Philoso- 
phers.—  Influence  of  the  Art  of  Sculpture  among  the  Greeks. 
—  Man  not  born  Depraved. 

We  give  an  extract  from  Bishop  Kaye's  "Account  of  the 
Writings  and  Opinions  of  Clement "  ;  which  furnishes  a  good 
specimen  of  Clement's  general  style  of  argument,  and  further 
contains  his  views  of  the  Son,  Logos,  or  Word.  The  passage 
occurs  near  the  commencement  of  the  "  Hortatory  Address." 
Clement  introduces  it,  fancifully  enough,  as  was  his  way,  by 
an  allusion  to  the  fabled  power  of  music  among  the  Greeks, 
who  taught  that  Amphion  raised  the  walls  of  Thebes  by  the 
sound  of  his  lyre,  and  that  Orpheus  tamed  savage  beasts  and 
charmed  trees  and  mountains  by  the  sweetness  of  his  song. 
The  Christian  musician,  or  Christ,  he  says,  had  performed 
greater  things  than  these  ;  for  he  had  "  tamed  men,  the  most 
savage  of  beasts  "  ;  instead  of  "  leading  men  to  idols,  stocks, 
and  stones,"  he  had  "  converted  stones  and  beasts  into  men." 

"  He  who  sprang  from  David,  yet  was  before  David,  the  Word  of 
God,  disdaining  inanimate  instruments,  the  harp  and  lyre,  adapts  this 
world,  and  the  little  world  man,  both  his  soul  and  body,  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  thus  celebrates  God.  What,  then,  does  the  instrument, 
the  Word  of  God  the  Lord,  the  New  Song,  mean?  To  open  the 
eyes  of  the  blind  and  the  ears  of  the  deaf;  to  guide  the  lame  and 
the  wanderer  to  righteousness ;  to  show  God  to  foolish  man ;  to  put 
an  end  to  corruption ;  to  overcome  death ;  to  reconcile  disobedient 
children  to  their  Father.  The  instrument  of  God  loves  man.  The 
Lord  pities,  disciplines,  exhorts,  admonishes,  saves,  guards,  and,  of 
his  abundance,  promises  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  the  reward  of 
learning  from  him  ;  requiring  nothing  from  us  but  that  we  shall  be 
saved.     Think  not,  however,  that  the  Song  of  Salvation  is  new.    We 


Clement's  writings  and  opinions.  123 

existed  before  the  foundation  of  tlie  world,  existing  first  in  God  him- 
self, inasmucli  as  we  were  destined  to  exist ;  we  were  the  rational 
creatures  of  tlie  Reason  (or  Word)  of  God ;  we  were  in  the  begin- 
ning through  the  Word,  because  the  Word  was  in  the  beginning. 
The  Word  was  from  the  beginning,  and  therefore  was  and  is  the 
divine  beginning  of  all  things  ;  but  now  that  he  has  taken  the  name 
which  of  old  was  sanctified,  the  Christ,  he  is  called  by  me  a  New 
Song.  Tliis  Word,  the  Christ,  was  from  the  beginning  the  cause 
botli  of  our  being  (for  he  was  in  God)  and  of  our  well-being.  Now 
he  has  appeared  to  men,  being  alone  both  God  and  man,  the  Author 
to  us  of  all  good  ;  by  whom,  being  instructed  how  to  live  well,  we 
are  speeded  onwards  to  eternal  life.  This  is  the  New  Song,  —  the 
manifestation,  now  shining  forth  in  us,  of  the  Word,  who  was  in  the 
beginning  and  before  the  beginning.  The  preexistent  Saviour  has 
appeared  nigh  unto  us ;  he  who  exists  in  the  Self-existent  has 
appeared ;  the  Word,  wlio  was  with  God,  has  appeared  as  our 
Teacher;  the  Word,  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  who  in  the  be- 
ginning, when  he  formed  us,  gave  us  life  as  our  Maker,  appearing  as 
our  Teacher,  has  taught  us  to  live  well,  in  order  that  hereafter  he 
may,  as  God,  give  us  life  eternal.  He  has  appeared  to  assist  us 
against  the  serpent  who  enslaves  men,  binding  them  to  stocks  and 
statues  and  idols  by  the  wretched  bond  of  superstition.  He  offered 
salvation  to  the  Israelites  of  oltl  by  signs  and  wonders  in  Egypt  and 
the  desert,  at  the  burning  bush,  and  in  the  cloud  which  followed  the 
Hebrews  like  a  servant-maid.  He  spoke  to  them  by  Moses  and 
Isaiah  and  the  whole  prophetic  choir;  but  he  speaks  to  us  directly 
by  himself.  He  is  made  man,  that  we  may  learn  from  man  how  man 
may  become  God.  Is  it  not,  then,  strange  that  God  should  invite  us 
to  virtue,  and  that  we  should  slight  the  benefit,  and  put  aside,  the 
proffered  salvation?"  —  pp.  11-14.* 

Those  who  will  be  at  the  pains  carefully  to  analyze  this 
passage  will  perceive,  that,  though  Clement  believed  the  Son 
to  have  existed  before  the  world,  and  does  not  hesitate  to 
bestow  on  him  the  title  God,  he  is  far  from  ascribing  to  him 
supreme,  underived  divinity.  The  phrases  "in  the  begin- 
ning" and  "before  the  world  was,"  and  others  of  similar 
import,  which  Clement,  in  common  with  most  of  the  early 
Fathers,  applies  to  him,  by  no  means  implied  their  belief  that 
he  had  a  personal  existence  from  eternity.     This  is  evident 

*  Some  Account  of  the  Writings  and  Opinions  of  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
By  John,  Bishop  of  Lincoln.     London,  1835.     8vo. 


124  CLEMENT    OF   ALEXANDRIA. 

from  the  fact,  that,  in  the  passage  above  quoted,  the  very  same 
expressions  are  applied  by  him  to  the  human  race.  "  We," 
says  Clement,  "  existed  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  ; 
existing  first  in  God  himself,  inasmuch  as  we  were  destined  to 
exist." 

The  Fathers  ascribed  to  the  Son  a  sort  of  metaphysical  or 
potential  existence  in  the  Father ;  that  is,  they  supposed  that 
he  existed  in  him  from  all  eternity  as  an  attribute,  —  his 
logos,  reason,  or  wisdom  ;  that,  before  the  formation  of  the 
world,  this  attribute  acquired  by  a  voluntary  act  of  the  Father 
a  distinct  personal  subsistence,  and  became  his  instrument  in 
the  creation.  The  germ  of  this  doctrine  will  be  found  in  the 
passage  above  given. 

That  the  Logos  was  originally  regarded  by  Clement,  in 
common  with  the  other  Fathers,  as  the  reason  or  wisdom  of 
God,  is  undoubted.  Like  other  attributes  or  qualities,  it  was 
sometimes  represented  figuratively  as  speaking  and  acting. 
By  a  transition  not  very  difficult  in  an  age  accustomed  to 
speculations  of  the  subtilest  nature,  if  intelligible  at  all,  it  came 
at  length  to  be  viewed  as  a  real  being  or  person,  having  a  dis- 
tinct personal  subsistence.  Still  the  former  modes  of  expres- 
sion were  not  for  a  long  time  wholly  laid  aside.  Traces  of  the 
old  doctrine  are  visible  among  the  Fathers  of  Clement's  time. 
Clement  himself  sometimes  speaks  of  the  Logos  as  an  attrib- 
ute. He  calls  the  Son  expressly  "  a  certain  energy  or  opera- 
tion of  the  Father."  *  And,  again,  he  speaks  of  the  Logos 
of  the  Father  of  the  universe  as  "  the  wisdom  and  goodness 
of  God  most  manifest,"  or  most  fully  manifested.! 

None  of  the  Platonizing  Fathers  before  Origen  have  ac- 
knowledged the  inferiority  of  the  Son  in  more  explicit  terms 
than  Clement.  Photius,  writing  in  the  ninth  century,  besides 
charging  him,  as  already  said,  with  making  the  Son  a  "  crea- 
ture "  (^Cod.  109),  says  that  he  used  other  "impious  words 
fiall  of  blasphemy,"  in  a  work  which  has  since  perished. 
Rufinus,  too,  accuses  him  of  calling  the  "  Son  of  God  a 
creature."  % 

We  might  quote  numerous  passages  from  Clement  in  which 

*  Stromata,  lib.  vii.  c.  2,  p.  833,  ed.  Potter. 

t  Stromata,  lib.  V.  c.  1,  p.  646.  t  Jerome,  Apol.  adv.  Rufin.,  lib.  ii 


CLEMENT  ON  THE  INFERIORITY  OF  THE  SON.      125 

the  inferiority  of  the  Son  is  distinctly  asserted.  Thus,  after 
observing  that  "  the  most  excellent  thing  on  earth  is  a  most 
pious  man,  and  the  most  excellent  thing  in  heaven  an  angel," 
he  adds,  "  But  the  most  perfect,  and  most  holy,  and  most 
commanding,  and  most  regal,  and  by  far  the  most  beneficent 
nature,  is  that  of  the  Son,  which  is  next  to  the  only  omnip- 
otent Father."  He  "  obeys  the  will  of  the  good  and  omnipo- 
tent Father '" ;  "rules  all  things  by  the  will  of  the  Father"; 
"  he  is  constituted  the  cause  of  all  good  by  the  will  of  the 
omnipotent  Father."* — "If  thou  wilt  be  initiated,"  that  is, 
become  a  Christian,  "  thou  shalt  join  in  the  dance  around  the 
uncreated  and  imperishable  and  only  true  God,  the  Word" 
(Logos,  Son)  of  God  hymning  with  us."  f  We  are  astonished 
that  any  one  can  read  Clement  with  ordinary  attention,  and 
imagine  for  a  single  moment  that  he  regarded  the  Son  as  nu- 
merically identical  —  one  —  with  the  Fatlier.  His  dependent 
and  inferior  nature,  as  it  seems  to  us,  is  everywhere  recog- 
nized. Clement  believed  God  and  the  Son  to  be  numerically 
distinct ;  in  other  words,  two  beings,  —  the  one  supreme,  the 
other  subordinate,  the  "first-created  of  God,"  first-born  of 
all  created  intelligences,  and  with  them,  as  their  elder  brother, 
hymning  hallelujahs  around  the  throne  of  the  one  Infinite 
Father. 

He  calls  the  Son,  or  Logos,  the  "  image  of  God,"  as  man 
is  the  "image  of  man  "  ;  again,  his  "hand,"  or  instrument. 
He  describes  God  as  the  "  original  and  sole  Author  of  eternal 
life;  which  the  Son,"  he  says,  "receiving  of  God,  gives  to 
us."  He  makes  the  great  requisite  of  eternal  life  to  be,  to 
"  know  God,  eternal,  giver  of  eternal  blessings,  and  first  and 
supreme  and  one  and  good ;  and  then  the  greatness  of  the 
Saviour  after  him  "  ;  J  according  to  the  declaration  of  Jesus, 
'  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the  only 
true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent.' " 

Clement's  views  of  the  Logos  had  nothing  marked  or  pecu- 
liar in  them  by  which  he  was  distinguished  from  those  who 
went  before ;  if  we  except,  possibly,  the  very  slight  differ- 
f nee  mentioned  in  the  note  below,  —  too  insignificant  almost 

*  Stromata,  lib.  vii.  c.  2,  pp.  831-833.  t  Cohort.,  c.  12,  p.  92. 

I  Quis  Dives  salvetur,  cc.  6-8,  p.  939. 


126  CLEMENT   OF  ALEXANDBIA. 

for  notice.  Those  of  the  present  day  who  talk  of  the  eternal 
generation  of  the  Son  cannot  allege,  as  authority,  the  Church 
or  the  Fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries.  They  are  all  on 
the  other  side  ;  *  Origen,  possibly,  excepted. 

The  antiquity  of  the  Son,  or  Logos,  was  a  topic  to  which 
Clement  and  the  Fathers  often  adverted ;  and  it  should  be 
observed  that  they  had  a  particular  motive  for  this.  One 
i^reat  obstacle  to  the  reception  of  Christianity,  and  one  to  the 
consideration  of  which  Clement  allots  no  small  space,  was 
custom,  prescription.  Christianity,  it  was  urged,  was  new  ;  a 
thing  of  yesterday  ;  an  institution  which  had  suddenly  risen 
up,  and  ventured  boldly  to  attack  the  time-hallowed  religions 
and  philosophy  of  the  old  world.  To  forsake  these  in  its 
favor,  it  was  represented,  would  be  great  impiety.  This 
argument  the  early  apologists  for  Christianity  met,  partly  by 
dwelling  on  the  superior  antiquity  of  Moses,  from  whom,  as 
they  erroneously  contended,  Plato  and  the  Grecian  sages  had 
borrowed  the  most  valuable  of  their  philosophical  opinions ;  f 
and  partly  by  insisting  that    these   sages   derived   gleams  of 

*  Neandcr  (History  of  Christian  Dogmas,  p.  144,  Bohn)  says,  that  "in  Clem- 
ent we  first  meet  with  the  attempt  to  set  aside  the  idea  of  time  in  its  applica- 
tion to  the  transition  of  the  Logos  into  reality."  Justin  and  others  believed 
that  this  transition  took  place  when  God  was  about  to  proceed  to  the  work  of 
creation.  But  the  idea  of  any  specific  time  could  be  excluded,  without  the 
supposition  that  the  transition,  called  the  generation  of  the  Son,  took  place 
from  eternity.  This  neither  Clement,  nor  the  Fathers  generally,  believed. 
They  could  say,  that  he  was  begotten  without  reference  to  time,  or  before 
time,  or  the  measure  of  time ;  but  this  was  very  different  from  referring  the 
event  to  eternity,  which  they  never  thought  of  doing.  This  distinction  Ne- 
ander  himself  recognizes.  Arius,  who  believed  that  the  Son  was  created  out 
of  nothing,  discarded  the  idea  of  time  as  connected  with  the  event.  Some  of 
the  Fathers  taught  that  the  Son  was  begotten  when  the  world  lay  in  chaos. 
How  they  would  have  expressed  themselves  had  they  been  acquainted  with 
the  modern  science  of  geology,  it  is  impossible  to  say. 

t  This  is  often  distinctly  asserted.  Thus  Clement,  after  quoting  a  senti- 
ment from  Plato,  proceeds :  "  Whence,  O  Plato  !  did  you  learn  this  truth  ? 
Whence  that  exhaustless  affluence  of  words  with  wliich  you  inculcate  the 
reverence  due  to  the  Divinity  ?  I  know  your  masters,  though  you  would 
conceal  them.  You  learned  geometry  of  the  Egyptians ;  astronomy,  of  the 
Babylonians ;  from  the  Thracians  you  received  the  healing  song ;  Assyrians 
taught  you  maiij'^  things  :  but  laws  (as  many  as  are  agreeable  to  truth),  and 
the  opinions  you  entertain  concerning  God,  you  owe  to  the  Hebrews  "  { Cohort., 
c.  6,  p.  60).  These  plagiarisms  of  the  Greek  philosophers  are  a  favorite  topic 
with  Clement  in  the  "  Stromata." 


ANTIQUITY    OF   CHRISTIANITY.  127 

truth  immediately  from  the  same  divine  Logos,  or  reason, 
which  had  inspired  the  Jewish  prophets,  and  which  had  now 
given  to  the  world  the  clearer  light  of  Christianity.  This 
Logos,  they  asserted,  was  of  old,  "  in  the  beginning,"  before 
time  was,  with  the  Father ;  that  Christianity,  therefore,  far 
from  being,  as  was  represented,  the  growth  of  yesterday, 
dated  far  back  in  the  ages,  before  the  birth  of  the  oldest  of 
the  sages,  or  the  existence  even  of  the  world  they  inhabited. 
The  wise  men  of  Greece,  they  said,  partook  from  the  same 
fountain,  but  only  "  shallow  draughts."  The  Word,  Clement 
denominates,  figuratively,  the  Sun  of  the  Soul.  "  From  this 
divine  fountain  of  light,"  says  he,  "  some  rays  had  flowed 
even  to  the  Greeks,  who  had  thereby  been  able  to  discover 
faint  traces  of  the  truth.  But,"  he  adds,  "  the  Word  liimself 
has  now  appeared  in  the  form  of  man  to  be  our  teacher."  * 

Clement  attributes  a  sort  of  inspiration  to  Plato  and  the 
philosophers.  In  so  doing,  he  is  not  singular.  Most  of  the 
early  Fathers  of  the  church  do  the  same.  Indeed,  the  at- 
tempt to  say  or  do  anything  without  the  inspiration  of  the 
Logos,  or  Word  of  truth,  they  maintained,  was  as  idle  as  to 
think  of  Avalking  without  feet :  a  figure  which  Clement  uses. 
The  motive  in  all  these  representations,  as  we  have  said,  was 
to  prove  the  superior  claims  of  Christianity,  and  especially 
its  chiim  to  antiquity,  in  refutation  of  the  argument  of  the 
philosophers,  overwhelming,  as  it  appeared,  to  the  adherents 
of  Paganism,  that  it  was  the  mushroom  growth  of  a  day,  as 
novel  as  it  was  arrogant  and  exclusive. 

For  this  purpose,  as  we  have  stated,  a  twofold  argument  was 
employed :  first,  that  the  few  scattered  rays  of  truth,  which 
might  be  gathered  from  the  writings  of  the  Grecian  sages, 
were  derived  from  the  same  fountain  as  Christianity,  in  which 
the  full  light  beamed ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  Logos,  or  divine 
reason,  from  which  this  light  emanated,  was  more  ancient 
than  the  worlds,  being,  in  the  beginning,  with  God.  How, 
then,  could  Chi-istianity  be  described  as  recent,  while  the 
religions  and  philosophy  it  was  designed  to  supplant  numbered 
centuries  ?  If  there  was  a  little  subtilty  in  this  reasoning,  it 
was  at  least  suited  to  the  genius  of  the  age,  and  especially  to 
*  CohoH.  ad  Gent.,  c.  7,  p.  64. 


128  CLEMENT   OF   ALEXANDRIA, 

the  speculative  Grecian  mind.  Such  were  the  weapons  Clem- 
ent wielded ;  such  the  defences  of  Christianity  growing  out  of 
the  demands  of  the  times. 

Clement  regarded  the  art  of  sculpture  among  the  Greeks 
as  exerting  a  debasing  influence  ;  for  it  "  dragged  down  piety 
to  the  ground."  Men  adored,  he  says,  according  to  his  appre- 
hension, the  material  image,  and  not  the  Divinity  it  repre- 
sented. The  following  passage  will  put  our  readers  in  posses- 
sion of  his  views  on  the  subject :  — 

"  The  makers  of  gods  worship  not,  as  far  as  I  can  understand,  gods 
and  demons,  but  earth  and  art,  of  which  the  images  are  composed ; 
for  the  image  is,  in  truth,  dead  matter,  formed  by  the  hand  of  the 
artificer.  But  our  God,  the  only  true  God,  is  not  an  object  of  sense, 
made  out  of  matter ;  he  is  comprehended  by  the  understanding. 
Alas  for  your  impiety  !  You  bury,  as  much  as  lies  in  your  power, 
the  pure  essence ;  and  hide  in  tombs  that  which  is  uncontaminated 
and  holy,  robbing  that  which  is  divine  of  its  true  essence.  Why  do 
you  thus  give  the  honor  due  to  God  to  those  who  are  no  gods  ? 
Why,  leaving  heaven,  do  you  honor  earth  ?  For  what  are  gold  and 
silver  and  adamant  and  iron  and  brass  and  ivory  and  precious  stones, 
but  earth,  and  from  the  earth  ?  Are  not  all  these  objects  which  you 
behold  the  offspring  of  our  mother,  the  earth?  Why,  vain  and  fool- 
ish men,  blaspheming  the  celestial  abode,  do  you  drag  down  piety  to 
the  ground,  forming  to  yourselves  earthly  gods,  and,  following  these 
created  things  in  preference  to  the  uncreated  God,  immerse  your- 
selves in  thickest  darkness?  The  Parian  stone  is  beautiful,  but  is 
not  Neptune ;  the  ivory  is  beautiful,  but  is  not  Olympian  Jove. 
Matter  always  stands  in  need  of  art ;  but  God  needs  nothing.  Art 
comes  forth,  and  matter  puts  on  a  form  ;  the  costliness  of  the  sub- 
stance makes  it  convertible  to  the  purposes  of  gain ;  but  the  form 
alone  renders  it  an  object  of  veneration.  Your  statue  is  gold  or 
wood  or  stone  or  earth ;  if  you  consider  its  origin,  it  received  its 
form  from  the  workman.  I  have  learned  to  tread  upon  the  earth, 
not  to  adore  it ;  nor  is  it  lawful  for  me  to  trust  the  hopes  of  my  soul 
to  things  wuhout  a  soul." 

Again :  "  But,  though  the  artisan  can  make  an  idol,  he  has  never 
made  a  breathing  image  or  formed  soft  flesh  out  of  earth.  Who 
liquefied  the  marrow  ?  who  hardened  the  bones  ?  who  extended  the 
nerves?  who  inflated  the  veins?  who  infused  blood  into  them?  who 
stretched  the  skin  around  them  ?  who  made  the  eye  to  see  ?  who 
breathed  a  soul  into  the  body?  who  freely  gave  righteousness  ?  who 


CHRISTIAN   LIBERTY.  129 

has  promised  immortality  ?  The  Creator  of  all  things,  alone,  the 
Supreme  Artisan,  made  man  a  living  image;  but  your  Olympian 
Jove,  the  image  of  an  image,  far  diiFering  from  the  truth,  is  the  dumb 
work  of  Attic  hands."  * 

Christianity,  as  Clement  taught,  left  men  at  liberty  to  pur- 
sue their  ordinary  occupations ;  and  he  expressly  mentions 
military  service  along  M^ith  navigation  and  agriculture.  His 
words  are,  "  Give  attention  to  agriculture,  if  you  are  a  hus- 
bandman ;  but,  while  you  cultivate  the  earth,  acknowledge 
God.  Are  you  engaged  in  a  maritime  occupation  ?  navigate 
the  waters,  but  invoke  the  celestial  Governor.  Does  Chris- 
tianity find  you  bearing  arms?  obey  the  just  commands  of 
your  general."  f 

We  might  glean  more  from  the  address ;  but  we  do  not 
know  that  there  are  any  opinions  expressed  in  it,  in  addition 
to  those  already  given,  which  possess  sufficient  interest  to 
authorize  a  recital.  We  will  only  say,  in  taking  leave  of  it, 
that  Clement  interprets  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  fall  alle- 
gorically,  supposing  that  by  the  serpent  is  to  be  understood 
pleasure.  He  did  not  believe  that  man  comes  into  the  world 
"  absolutely  depraved  "  ;  no  one,  he  thinks,  "  commits  iniquity 
for  its  own  sake  "  ;  and  the  imputation  of  original  sin  to  chil- 
dren he  rejects  in  the  most  decided  terms.  According  to  him, 
"  man  now  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  Tempter,  in  v^hich 
Adam  stood  before  the  fall.":^ 

*  Kaye's  Clement,  pp.  15,  24.  t  Cohort.,  c.  10,  p.  80 

I  See  Hagenbach,  Text-Book,  etc.,  First  Period,  §  63. 


130  CLEMENT   OP   ALEXANDRIA. 


CHAPTER   III. 

Clement's    P^edagogue.  —  His   Pkecepts   of   Living.  —  Social   Life 

AMONG  THE  EGYPTIANS  IN  HIS  DaT.  FoOD.  — UsE  OF  WiNE. CON- 
VIVIAL Entertainments.  —  Music.  —  Garlands.  —  The  Ladies  of 
Alexandria.  —  The  "Fine  Gentlemen." — Clement  as  a  Keformek. 

The  "  Hortatory  Address "  is  followed  by  the  "  Pseda- 
gogue,"  in  three  books.  The  object  of  the  "  Hortatory  Ad- 
dress "  was  to  prove  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  make 
converts  from  Heathenism.  But,  being  converted,  men  would 
need  to  be  further  taught  their  duty,  and  the  due  regulation 
of  their  conduct  according  to  the  moral  standard  of  Christian- 
ity;  and  the  design  of  the  "  Paedagogue"  is  to  meet  this  want. 
Du  Pin  calls  it  a  "  discourse  entirely  of  morality  "  ;  but  it  is 
not  a  systematic  treatise,  nor  was  intended  to  be  such.  Bar- 
beyrac  finds  much  fault  with  it.  He  says  that  "  it  explains 
nothing  as  it  should  do ;  that  there  is  no  one  duty  which  it 
puts  on  the  right  foundation ;  that  the  obligations  growing  out 
of  the  social  relations  are  in  no  one  instance  traced  to  their 
true  principles,  or  so  explained  as  to  admit  of  general  applica- 
tion." *  All  this,  and  much  more,  no  doubt,  may  be  said  with 
truth ;  but,  in  thus  stating  the  defects  of  the  work,  it  should 
occur  to  us  that  we  are  censurino;  Clement  for  what  he  never 
attempted,  that  is,  to  give  to  the  world  a  system  of  Christian 
ethics.  His  task  was  a  more  humble  one,  though  not,  per- 
haps, less  useful.  It  was  to  furnish  Christians  of  his  time  with 
practical  rules  for  the  direction  of  their  conduct  in  ordinary 
every-day  life.  In  doing  this,  he  is  exceedingly  minute,  and 
often  goes  into  details  which  are  somewhat  offensive  to  deli- 
cacy ;  and  many  of  his  precepts  and  distinctions  are  ill-founded 
or  puerile.  But  many  of  them  are  just  and  discriminating, 
and  must  have  been  found  in  the  highest  degree  useful  to 
Christians,  situated  as  believers  then  were,  —  living  in  the 
*  De  la  Morale  des  Peres. 


Clement's  pedagogue.  131 

midst  of  Pagans,  and  often  uncertain,  as  they  must  have  been, 
how  far  compliance  with  existing  customs  was  justifiable,  and 
where  precisely  the  line  of  distinction  was  to  be  drawn  be- 
tween the  manners  of  the  Heathen,  and  the  conduct  which 
should  distinguish  themselves  as  disciples  of  Jesus.  Nor  are 
they  wholly  without  interest  to  us.  Taken  together,  the  pre- 
cepts and  directions  which  Clement  has  left  in  the  work 
referred  to  show  in  what  he  (and  we  suppose  he  may  be  taken 
as  a  fair  specimen  of  enlightened  Christians  of  his  age)  sup- 
posed Christian  morality  to  consist ;  what  was  its  extent,  and 
its  bearing  on  common  life,  —  a  subject  on  which  minds  accus- 
tomed to  liberal  inquiries  may  be  supposed  to  feel  some  curios- 
ity. Further :  the  work  throws  no  little  light  on  Pagan  cus- 
toms, and  modes  of  living,  particularly  on  domestic  and  social 
life  at  Alexandria,  at  the  time  Clement  wrote,  that  is,  at  the 
commencement  of  the  third  century.  In  either  point  of  view, 
the  performance  is  not  devoid  of  value  ;  and  such  is  the  pure 
religious  tone  in  which,  as  a  whole,  it  is  written,  and  the  noble 
and  elevated  spirit  which  breathes  through  many  parts  of  it, 
that  no  one,  even  at  the  present  day,  can  read  it  without  ben- 
efit to  himself,  except  by  a  fault  of  his  own. 

By  the  "  paedagogue,"  Clement  understands  Christ,  or  the 
Word.  The  office  of  Christ  designated  by  this  term,  it  seems, 
is  not  so  much  to  teach  doctrines  as  to  give  precepts  of  holy 
living  ;  not  to  unfold  those  mystical  interpretations  of  Scrip- 
ture, the  knowledge  of  which  is  essential  to  the  perfect  Chris- 
tian, or  true  Gnostic,  as  Clement  calls  him,  but  by  regulating 
the  heart  and  life  of  the  convert,  to  fit  him  for  the  reception 
of  the  highest  knowledge.  This  knowledge  it  is  the  object  of 
the  "  Stromata,"  the  third  of  the  larger  works  of  Clement 
which  have  come  down  to  us,  to  impart.  Thus  the  Word,  or 
Christ,  has  three  offices :  the  first  is  hortatory ;  he  then  acts 
the  part  of  the  pedagogue  ;  and,  lastly,  that  of  a  teacher. 
The  pupils  of  the  paedagogue  are  Christians  generally,  the 
Jews  having  been  his  former  pupils,  whom  he  addressed 
through  Moses  and  the  prophets.  These  matters  are  suffi- 
ciently explained  in  the  first  book  of  the  "  Pasdagogue  "  ;  and 
Clement  enters  into  an  argument  to  show  that  the  justice  of 
God  is  not  incompatible  with  his  goodness ;  that  the  air  of 


132  CLEMENT    OP    ALEXANDRIA. 

severity  which  the  Jewish  dispensation  appears  sometimes  to 
wear,  and  the  threatenings  and  chastisements  so  frequently 
occurring  under  it,  do  not  prove,  as  some  heretics  contended, 
that  the  God  of  the  Jews  was  not  also  the  God  of  the  Chris- 
tians ;  for  tliey  are  parts  of  a  salutary  discipline.  Punishment, 
as  Plato  taught,  is  remedial,  and  souls  are  benefited  by  it  by 
being  amended.  Far  from  being  incompatible  with  God's 
goodness,  then,  it  is  a  striking  proof  of  it.  For  "  punishment 
is  for  the  good  and  benefit  of  him  who  is  punished  ;  it  is  the 
bringing  back  to  rectitude  that  which  has  swerved  from  it." 
So  Clement  argues,  "  But,"  says  he,  "  I  do  not  admit  that 
God  wishes  to  avenge  himself;  for  vengeance  is  the  retribu- 
tion of  evil  for  the  benefit  of  the  avenger ;  and  he  who  teaches 
us  to  pray  for  those  who  insult  us  cannot  desire  to  avenge  him- 
self." The  discipline  God  administers  through  his  Son,  or 
Christ,  is  various,  but  all  designed  for  the  salvation  of  men. 
Thus  the  paedagogue  adopts  at  dliferent  times  different  meas- 
ures, some  more  mild  and  others  more  severe,  but  all  for  the 
accomplishment  of  the  same  benevolent  end.  "  Those  who 
are  sick,"  says  Clement,  "  need  a  Saviour ;  they  who  have 
wandered,  a  guide ;  they  who  ai'e  blind,  one  who  shall  lead 
them  to  the  light ;  they  who  thirst,  the  living  fountain,  of 
which  he  who  partakes  shall  thirst  no  more ;  the  dead  need 
life  ;  the  sheep,  a  shepherd  ;  children,  a  psedagogue  ;  all  man- 
kind need  Jesus." 

We  now  turn  to  the  habits  of  private  and  social  life  of  the 
Alexandrians,  a  little  after  the  year  200  of  our  era,  as  far  as 
they  may  be  collected  from  what  we  may  call  Clement's  pre- 
cepts of  living.  In  the  second  and  third  books  of  the  "  Peda- 
gogue "  he  goes  into  some  very  curious  details,  from  which  a 
writer  who  should  undertake  to  portray  the  social  life,  and 
especially  the  luxurious  habits,  of  the  Alexandrians  at  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  would  derive  essential  aid.  The  fidel- 
ity of  his  representations  there  is  no  reason  for  doubting ;  and 
from  the  prohibitory  precepts  he  delivers,  even  when  he  does 
not  attempt  a  formal  description,  much  may  be  inferred  as  to 
the  manners  of  the  age  ;  for  there  is  a  tacit  reference  to  the 
existing  state  of  things,  and  to  the  dangers  to  which  Christians 
were  on  all  sides  exposed  in  that  gay  city.     Clement  is  ad- 


FOOD    AND    ITS   USES.  133 

dressing  Christians ;  but  it  is  not  a  necessary  inference  that 
they  participated  in  all  the  faults  and  excesses  he  condemns. 
If  so,  they  had  been  little  benefited  by  their  conversion. 
That  so  many  cautionary  precepts  were  deemed  necessary, 
however,  if  they  were  not  designed  especially  for  the  use  of 
recent  converts,  may  suggest  the  suspicion,  that  the  prevalent 
conceptions  of  the  requisitions  of  Christianity,  regarded  as  a 
rule  of  life,  were  somewhat  low  and  imperfect. 

Clement  first  treats  of  food  and  its  uses.  We  should  "  eat 
to  live,"  he  says,  and  not  "live  to  eat,"  —  having  regard  to 
health  and  strength,  which  are  best  promoted  by  simplicity 
of  diet.  Food  is  not  our  business,  nor  pleasure  the  end  ;  and 
he  draws  a  picture  of  tiie  gourmand  of  his  day,  and  gives  a 
catalogue  of  the  delicacies  most  prized  by  him.  The  word 
agapce^  in  some  sort  sacred,  was,  it  seems,  in  his  time  applied 
to  luxurious  entertainments,  and  was  made  to  sanction  intem- 
perance :  of  this  he  complains  as  an  abuse  of  which,  as  it 
would  appear.  Christians  w^ere  guilty.  His  description  of  an 
i^picure,  with  his  "  eyes  turned  downward  to  the  earth,  always 
bending  over  tables  which  are  furnished  from  the  earth  ";  and 
his  account  of  the  conduct  of  many  at  feasts,  of  the  "  eager- 
ness with  which  they  scrutinized  the  various  dishes,  and  the 
ridiculous  gestures  by  which  it  was  expressed " ;  of  the  im- 
peded utterance,  and  other  indecencies  witnessed,  —  contain 
some  graphic  touches.  Many  of  the  habits  he  condemns  cer- 
tainly exhibit  great  coarseness  of  manners ;  and,  if  we  may 
credit  his  representations,  an  Egyptian  entertainment,  at  the 
period  alluded  to,  presented  a  scene  one  would  not  wish  often 
to  witness.  Clement,  however,  has  no  narrow  and  bigoted 
notions  :  for  he  allows  Christians,  when  invited,  to  attend  the 
feasts  of  the  Heathen,  and  to  partake  of  a  variety  of  food ; 
observing,  in  the  mean  time,  the  laws  of  temperance  and 
propriety. 

From  eating,  Clement  proceeds  to  drinking.  The  "  wine 
question,"  as  it  is  called,  is  not  new :  it  seems,  it  was  agitated 
in  Clement's  day ;  and,  as  he  is  an  authority  which  has  been 
appealed  to  in  recent  discussions,  some  of  our  readers  may 
feel  a  little  curiosity  to  know  his  views  on  the  subject  more 
fully.     We  give  the  following  summary  and  quotations  from 


134  CLEMENT   OF   ALEXANDEIA. 

Bishop  Kaye's  "  Clement "  ;  after  which  we  will  add  a  pas- 
sage wliich  the  bishop  has  omitted,  having  an  express  bearing 
on  the  controversy  as  it  existed  in  Clement's  time.  We  are 
not,  let  it  be  observed,  arguing  for  or  against  the  use  of  wine  : 
we  do  not  enter  into  any  argument  on  the  question  ;  we  are 
simply,  and  because  it  comes  in  our  way,  giving  Clement's 
views  as  a  matter  of  history. 

" '  Water  is  the  natural  drink  of  man  :  this  the  Lord  gave  to  the 
Israelites  while  they  were  wandering  in  the  wilderness ;  though, 
when  they  came  into  their  rest,  tlte  sacred  vine  brought  forth  the 
prophetic  grape.  Boys  and  girls  ought  to  be  confined  strictly  to 
water:  wine  heats  the  blood  and  inflames  the  passions.'  Clement 
allows  only  bread,  without  any  liquid,  for  breakfast  or  luncheon,  to 
those  who  are  in  the  flower  of  their  age.  At  supper,  he  allows  wine 
in  small  quantities.*  'They  who  are  advanced  in  life  may  drink 
more  freely,  in  order  to  warm  their  chilled  blood :  they  must  not, 
however,  drink  so  much  as  will  cloud  their  reason  or  affect  their 
memory,  or  cause  them  to  walk  unsteadily.'  These  permissions  and 
restrictions,  Clement  grounds  on  medical  reasons.  He  quotes  an 
author  named  Artorius,  who  wrote  on>  longevity,  and  said  that  men 
ought  only  to  drink  enough  to  moisten  their  food.  *  Wine  may  be 
used  on  two  accounts,  —  for  health  and  relaxation.  Wine,  drunk  in 
moderation,  softens  the  temper.  As  life  consists  of  that  which  is 
necessary  and  that  which  is  useful,  wine,  which  is  useful,  should  be 
mixed  with  water,  which  is  necessary.'  f  After  describing  the  effects 
of  drunkenness,  Clement  proceeds  to  refute  the  opinion  of  those  who 
contended  that  no  serious  subjects  should  be  discussed  over  wine. 
He  argues,  that  perfect  wisdom,  being  the  knowledge  of  things  human 
and  divine,  comprehending  everything  in  its  superintendence  of  the 
human  race,  becomes,  as  it  were,  the  art  of  life ;  and  is  always  pres- 
ent through  the  whole  of  life,  producing  its  proper  effect  —  a  good 
life.  If,  then,  wisdom  is  driven  away  from  our  entertainments, 
drunkenness  follows,  with  all  its  train  of  evils  ;  of  which  Clement 
draws  a  picture,  at  once,  to  use  his  own  expressions,  ridiculous,  and 
exciting  i)ity.     He  compares  the  body  of  him  who  drinks  to  excess 

*  Clement's  expression  is,  "  In  the  evening,  at  the  time  of  supper,  wine  is 
to  be  used,  wlien  we  have  laid  aside  our  more  serious  studies."  One  reason 
he  assigns  is  tlie  chilUness  of  the  air,  and  the  failing  warmth  within,  which 
requires  to  be  restored.  — Peed.,  Hb.  ii.  c.  2,  p.  179. 

t  "Botli,"  says  Clement,  "are  the  works  of  God;  and  for  that  reason,  the 
mixture  of  both  water  and  wine  is  conducive  to  health."  —  Peed.,  Ub.  ii.  c.  2, 
p.  180. 


THE    USE    OF    WINE.  135 

to  a  ship  absorbed  into  the  abyss  of  intemperance  ;  while  the  helms- 
man, the  understanding,  is  tossed  about  in  the  billows,  and,  dizzy 
amidst  the  darkness  of  the  storm,  misses  the  harbor  of  truth,  steers 
towards  that  of  pleasure,  and,  striking  on  sunken  rocks,  makes  miser- 
able shipwreck.  '  Wine  may  be  used  in  the  winter  to  keep  out  the 
cold ;  at  other  seasons,  to  comfort  the  bowels.  As  we  ought  to  drink 
only  because  we  are  thirsty,  we  ought  not  to  be  curious  about  wines. 
In  drinking,  as  in  eating,  we  must  be  careful  not  to  show  any  inde- 
cent eagerness :  we  must  not  drink  with  so  much  haste  as  to  hiccough, 
or  spill  the  wine  over  our  beard  or  dress.'  Clement  observes,  that 
the  most  warlike  nations  were  those  mo-t  given  to  drinking.  Chris- 
tians, therefore,  a  peaci^ful  race,  should  drink  in  moderation,  as  Christ 
drank  when  he  was  made  man  for  us.  In  conclusion,  Clement 
cautions  females  to  be  guarded  in  their  manner  of  drinking,  and  not 
to  fall  into  any  indecency.  In  this  chapter,  Clement  has  borrowed 
much  from  Plato."  —  pp.  72-74. 

Clement  enumerates  the  foreign  whines  most  in  repute  in  his 
time,  but  thinks  that  native  wines  ought  to  satisfy  a  temperate 
man,  and  is  very  decided  in  his  condemnation  of  all  luxurious 
tastes  and  indulgences.  The  following  passage,  already  al- 
luded to,  stands  in  connection  with  those  quoted  by  Bishop 
Kaye  :  "  How  do  you  think  the  Lord  drank,  Avhen  for  our 
sakes  he  became  man  ?  Immoderately  as  we  ?  not  with  de- 
corum ?  not  temperately?  not  considerately  ?  For  be  assured," 
he  adds  in  opposition  to  the  Encratites,  who  held  wine  in 
abhorrence,  and  even  substituted  water  instead  of  it  in  the 
celebration  of  the  Supper,  —  "  be  assured  that  he  also  partook 
of  wine  ;  for  he  also  was  man.  And  he  blessed  the  wine, 
saying,  '  Take,  drink :  this  is  my  blood,'  —  the  blood  of  the 
vine.  And  that  those  who  drink  should  observe  sobriety,  he 
clearly  showed  ;  since  he  taught  at  feasts,  which  is  the  office 
of  a  sober  man.  And  that  it  was  wine  which  he  blessed,  is 
again  evident  from  his  saying  to  his  disciples,  '  I  will  not  drink 
of  the  fruit  of  this  vine  until  I  drink  it  with  you  in  the  king- 
dom of  my  Father.'  Moreover,  that  it  was  Avine  which  our 
Lord  drank,  again  appears  from  his  observation  respecting 
himself,  when,  upbraiding  the  Jews  for  their  hardness  of 
heart,  he  says,  '  The  Son  of  man  came,  and  they  say,  Behold 
a   gluttonous   man    and   a    winebibber,  —  a   friend  of  publi- 


136  CLEMENT   OF   ALEXANDRIA. 

sans!'"*  This  Clement  thinks  sufficient  to  refute  the  En- 
cratites. 

The  third  chapter  of  the  "  Paedagogue  "  is  devoted  to  the 
consideration  of  drinking-cups,  furniture,  and  articles  of  ex- 
pensive luxury  connected  with  the  table.  "  In  his  food,  his 
dress,  his  furniture,"  says  Clement,  "a  Christian  ought  to 
preserve  a  decent  consistency,  according  to  his  person,  age, 
pursuits,  and  the  particular  occasion."  "  Wealth  ill-directed," 
he  says,  is  a  "  citadel  of  wickedness."  The  best  wealth  is 
poverty  of  desires  ;  and  true  greatness  consists,  not  on  priding 
ourselves  on  wealth,  but  in  despising  it." 

Clement  treats,  in  the  next  chapter,  on  the  proper  conduct 
at  convivial  entertainments.  The  pipe  and  the  flute  he  would 
have  banished  from  these  entertainments,  as  accompaniments 
of  unholy  revelry  ;  yet  he  does  not  condemn  music  altogether, 
but  allows  the  singing  of  praises  to  God  to  the  lyre  and  the 
harp. 

We  then  have  a  chapter  on  "  laughter."  Buffoons  and 
imitators  Clement  would  banish  from  Christian  society,  and 
whatever  would  indicate  in  ourselves  a  light  and  frivolous 
mind.  "  We  may  be  facetious,"  says  Clement,  "  but  must  not 
lay  ourselves  out  to  excite  laughter."  What  is  natural  we 
must  not  attempt  to  eradicate,  but  only  to  restrain.  "  Man," 
says  he,  "  is  a  laughing  animal ;  but  he  must  not  always  be 
laughing.  Like  rational  animals,  we  must  rightly  temper  our 
cares  and  anxieties  by  relaxing  ourselves  according  to  rule, 
and  not  by  disregarding  all  rule."  Clement  describes  the 
different  species  of  laughter,  distinguishes  them  by  their 
names,  and  shows  how  and  when  it  may  be  proper  to  indulge 
it.  Thus,  "we  should  not  laugh  in  the  presence  of  those 
older  than  ourselves,  or  whom  we  ought  to  reverence,  unless 
they  say  something  facetious  to  make  us  gay.  We  must  not 
laugh  with  every  one  we  meet,  or  in  all  places,  or  with  all 
men,  or  at  everything."  Yet  we  must  not,  he  says,  wear  a 
severe  and  morose  countenance.  He  set  a  value  on  cheerful- 
ness. 

Clement  proceeds  in  the  remaining  chapters  to  treat  of 
^'  immodest  speech  "  ;  of  the  rules  to  be  observed  by  those 
*  Peed.,  lib.  ii.  c.  2,  p.  186. 


GARLANDS,    SLEEP,    DRESS.  137 

who  would  conduct  themselves  generally  with  propriety ;  in 
doing  which,  he  descends  to  the  minutest  particulars :  and  of 
o-arlands  and  ointments,  the  use  of  which  he  thinks  unneces- 
sary, and  to  be  discouraged,  as  favoring  luxury.  He  describes 
the  several  varieties  of  ointment  most  in  esteem,  and  says 
that  the  makers  of  them,  as  well  as  "  the  dyers  of  wool," 
were  banished  from  all  well-regulated  states.  "  Silly  women," 
he  says,  "  anoint  their  hair ;  of  which  the  only  effect  is  to 
render  them  gray  at  an  earlier  period  than  they  would  other- 
wise be."  Flowers  placed  on  the  head,  in  garlands,  he  con- 
siders as  perverted  from  their  natural  use,  "  The  ancient 
Greeks  wore  no  garlands ;  neither  the  suitors  of  Penelope, 
nor  the  luxuriovis  Phaeacians,  wore  them :  the}^  were  intro- 
duced after  the  Persian  War,  and  first  worn  by  the  victors  at 
the  games."  Again :  many  of  them  were  consecrated  to 
Heathen  divinities ;  and  should  not,  therefore,  says  Clement, 
be  woi'n  by  Christians  ;  as  the  '*  rose  to  the  Muses ;  the  lily 
to  Juno ;  the  myrtle  to  Diana."  —  "  It  was  the  custom  also," 
he  observes,  "  to  crown  the  statues  of  the  gods  ;  but  the  liv- 
ing image  of  God  ought  not  to  be  adorned  like  a  dead  idol. 
A  crown  of  amaranth  is  reserved  for  him  who  leads  a  holy 
life ;  a  flower  which  the  earth  is  not  capable  of  bearing,  and 
heaven  alone  produces."  This  conception  is  preserved  by 
Milton  :  — 

"  With  solemn  adoration,  down  they  cast 
Their  crowns  inwove  with  amaranth  and  gold,  — 
Immortal  amaranth  !  a  flower  which  once 
In  Paradise,  fast  by  the  tree  of  life, 
Began  to  bloom  ;  but  soon  for  man's  ofifence 
To  heaven  removed,  where  first  it  grew,  there  grows." 

Paradise  Lost,  b.  iii. 

In  another  chapter,  Clement  delivers  rules  concerning  sleep. 
The  soul,  he  says,  is  active  during  the  sleep  of  the  body ;  and 
dreams  afford  the  wisest  counsels.  Again  :  in  a  chapter  pur- 
porting to  be  on  the  married  life,  he  takes  occasion  to  speak 
of  the  proprieties  of  dress,  and  particularly  female  dress ;  and 
enters  minutely  into  a  description  of  a  lady's  toilet.  He  con- 
demns all  extravagance,  and  a  disposition  to  seek  "  the  rare 
and  expensive  in  preference  to  that  which  is  at  hand  and  of 
low  price."     He  will  not  allow  ladies  to  wear  "  dyed  gai> 


138  CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA. 

ments  " ;  bvit  he  insists  on  the  use  of  veils,  which  must  not  be 
purple  to  attract  the  gaze  of  men.  A  chapter  follows  on  cov- 
ering for  the  feet,  as  sandals  and  slippers,  on  which  it  was 
customary  to  bestow  great  expense ;  and  another,  on  orna- 
ments of  gold  and  precious  stones.  On  this  subject,  it  seems, 
the  ladies  of  Alexandria  did  not  unresistingly  submit.  They 
ventured  to  argue  the  case  with  the  holy  Father.  "  Why," 
say  they,  "  should  we  not  use  what  God  has  given  ?  Why 
should  we  not  take  pleasure  in  that  we  have  ?  For  whom 
were  precious  stones  intended,  if  not  for  us  ? "  This  was 
bringing  the  argument  home :  but  Clement  found  means  to 
reply,  by  pointing  out  the  distinction  between  what  is  neces- 
sary, as  water  and  air,  and  lies  open  to  all ;  and  what  is  not 
necessary,  as  gold  and  pearls,  which  lie  concealed  beneath  the 
earth  and  water,  and  are  brought  up  by  criminals,  who  are 
"set  to  dig  for  them."  Other  arguments  he  employs.  But 
the  advocates  for  the  use  of  ornaments  rejoin,  "  If  all  are  to 
select  the  common  and  frugal,  who  is  to  possess  the  more  ex- 
pensive and  magnificent  ?  "  To  this  Clement  replies,  some- 
what obscurely  and  clumsily,  by  a  reference  to  what  it  may  be 
proper  for  men  to  use,  if  they  avoid  setting  too  high  a  value 
on  it,  and  contracting  too  great  a  fondness  for  it.  He  con- 
cludes the  discussion  by  objecting  to  particular  articles  of 
female  ornament,  or  ornaments  of  a  particular  form ;  that  of 
the  serpent,  for  example,  which  was  the  form  under  which 
Satan  tempted  Eve,  and  therefore  to  be  abjured. 

The  third  book  of  the  "  Psedagogue  "  is  in  a  similar  strain. 
The  first  question  Clement  proceeds  to  discuss  is,  in  what 
true  beauty  consists.  He  speaks  of  the  folly  of  anxiety  to 
adorn  the  outward  man,  while  the  inward  man  is  neglected ; 
he  dwells  on  the  mischievous  consequence  of  a  love  of  dress, 
and  inveighs  against  a  multitude  of  female  fashions.  The  use 
of  mirrors  especially  moves  his  indignation.  The  reason  he 
assigns  against  the  use  of  them  is  curious  enough.  Every 
woman  who  looks  in  the  glass  makes  her  "  own  likeness  by 
reflection  "  ;  and  Moses  has  forbidden  "  to  make  any  likeness 
in  opposition,  as  it  were,  to  the  workmanship  of  God."  * 

*  False  hair  was  on  no  account  to  be  worn  by  a  woman ;  and  one  reason 
was,  tliat  the  priest,  in  blessing  her,  would  lay  his  hand,  not  on  her  head,  but 
TO  the  hair  of  another,  and,  through  it,  on  another  head. 


MORALS    AND    MANNERS.  139 

Tlie  "  fine  orentlemen  "  of  the  day  are  next  "  served  up." 
Among  other  things  which  Clement  could  not  abide  were  the 
attempts  made  to  conceal  the  effects  of  age.  "  They  think," 
says  he,  "  that,  like  snakes,  they  can  cast  off  old  age  from 
their  heads,  and  make  themselves  young."  For  this  purpose, 
they  were  accustomed,  it  seems,  to  dye  the  hair ;  which  Clem- 
ent thought  was  absolutely  intolerable,  because  it  was  in  direct 
contradiction  of  the  Saviour,  who  said  that  man  could  not 
make  one  hair  of  his  head  white  or  black  !  Clement,  too,  had 
the  true  Oriental  veneration  for  a  beard.  He  condemns  shav- 
ing altogether.  "  The  beard,"  he  says,  "  is  older  than  Eve, 
and  the  sign  of  a  superior  nature."  The  number  of  servants 
maintained  by  the  rich,  and  the  sums  expended  on  dogs,  mon- 
keys, and  birds,  is  a  subject  of  very  grave  remonstrance. 
The  picture  he  draws  of  the  morals  of  the  day,  and  particu- 
larly of  female  morals,  is  really  appalling.  Bathing  establish- 
ments, as  conducted  at  the  time,  come  in  for  a  share  of  his 
censure  ;  justly,  no  doubt.  The  use  of  wealth  is  treated  of; 
and  much  is  said  in  favor  of  modesty,  fi'ugality,  temperance, 
and  simplicity  in  habits  and  dress.  Women  are  allowed  more 
liberty  in  the  last  particular,  as  they  are  compelled  to  study 
dress  to  please  their  husbands ;  but  they  should  endeavor,  says 
Clement,  to  bring  their  husbands  to  a  better  mind.  By  show- 
ing too  much  attention  to  ornament,  they  cast  a  reflection  on 
their  Creator,  as  if  he  had  not  sufficiently  adorned  them. 
Men  are  allowed  to  wear  rings  only  on  their  little  finger.  The 
emblems  on  our  rings  should  be  a  dove,  or  a  fish,  or  a  ship 
sailing  before  the  wind,  or  a  lyre,  or  an  anchor ;  not  the  figure 
of  an  idol,  which  a  Christian  is  forbidden  to  reverence ;  or  a 
sword  or  a  bow,  ill  suited  to  a  follower  of  peace  ;  or  a  cup,  ill 
suited  to  the  temperate  ;  still  less  a  naked  figure.  Clement 
notices  with  disapprobation  the  lounging  habits  of  some  in  his 
time.  "  Men,"  he  says,  "  ought  not  to  waste  their  time  in 
shops,  in  order  to  look  at  the  females  as  they  pass ; "  which,  it 
seems,  was  the  custom  of  idlers  in  his  day. 

We  cannot  dwell  longer  on  this  work  of  Clement ;  nor  can 
we  stop  to  describe  the  feelings  with  which  one  rises  from  its 
perusal.  They  are  certainly  feelings  of  reverence  for  Chris- 
tianity, which  is  here  presented,  contending  as  an  antagonist 


140  CLEMENT   OF   ALEXANDRIA. 

principle  with  deep-seated  depravity  and  sin.  In  attempting 
to  reform  the  Alexandrians,  Clement  had  undertaken  a  Hercu- 
lean labor ;  and,  notwithstanding  the  puerility  and  absurdity 
of  many  of  his  precepts  and  distinctions,  there  was  a  dignity, 
a  consciousness  of  strength  and  moral  purity,  in  his  bearing,  a 
loftiness  of  aim  and  earnestness  of  performance,  which  must 
command  the  respect  and  admiration  of  every  honest  mind, 
and  pleads  eloquently  for  the  Christian  cause.  As  writers, 
the  Fathers  have  been  greatly  overrated ;  the  value  of  their 
opinions  has  been  exaggerated :  but  as  champions  of  Christi- 
anity, contending  manfully  and  unhesitatingly  with  the  power 
of  the  whole  Pagan  world,  the  power  of  the  sword,  the  power 
of  superstition,  wit,  and  ridicule  against  them ;  the  cham- 
pions of  a  pure  and  inflexible  morality  in  ages  of  extreme 
degeneracy  and  corruption  ;  the  defenders  of  a  faith  which 
recognized  the  principle  of  human  brotherhood  as  the  germ  of 
all  social  duty,  and  inculcated  a  spirit  of  self-sacrifice  and 
benevolence  as  constituting  the  only  sure  test  of  discipleship ; 
a  faith,  under  the  banner  of  which  they  cheerfully  met  death, 
and  often  a  death  by  violence,  and  left  traces  of  their  toil  and 
blood  on  every  soil,  —  no  tribute  of  veneration  we  can  render 
them  can  exceed  their  merits.  To  their  spirit  of  noble  cour- 
age it  is  to  be  attributed,  under  Providence,  that  Christianity 
was  not  crushed  in  its  infancy  ;  through  them  its  blessings 
have  been  bequeathed  to  us ;  their  labors  purchased  our  peace, 
their  sufferings  our  consolation,  their  martyrdom  our  hope  ; 
and,  to  turn  on  theni  a  look  of  contempt  on  account  of  some 
superstitious  weaknesses  which  belonged  to  the  age,  or  were 
the  result  of  their  Pagan  education,  and  which,  on  emerging 
from  the  night  of  Heathen  darkness,  they  had  not  the  strength 
at  once  to  throw  off",  argues,  we  think,  —  if  the  effect  is  not 
to  be  ascribed  to  want  of  reflection,  —  a  degree  either  of  illib- 
erality  of  mind  or  of  heartlessness,  which  constitutes  no  envi- 
able distinction. 


HIS   STEOMATA.  141 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Clement's  Stromata  :  its  Character.  —  Mysteries  and  Allegories. 
Clement's  Idea  of  the  True  Gnostic,  or  Perfect  Christian.  — 
Knowledge.  —  Motives.  —  Grand  Conceptions  of  God.  —  Prayer. 
The  whole  Life  a  Festival.  —  Spirituality. 

The  last  considerable  work  of  Clement  which  lias  escaped 
the  devouring  tooth  of  Time,  and  the  largest  of  the  three,  is 
the  "  Stromata."  Even  this  has  not  wholly  escaped  ;  for  a 
fragment  is  wanting  at  the  beginning,  and  the  last  book  is 
maimed  or  imperfect.  The  work  is  wholly  unlike  either  of 
the  two  preceding.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  book  of  miscellanies. 
"  Peace  be  with  the  soul  of  that  charitable  and  courteous 
author,  who,  for  the  common  benefit  of  his  fellow-authors, 
introduced  the  ingenious  way  of  miscellaneous  writing ! " 
The  words  are  Shaftesbury's.  We  believe,  however,  that 
Clement  is  not  entitled  to  the  honor  of  inventing  the  "  mis- 
cellany." Plutarch,  it  seems,  Avrote  a  work,  with  the  title  of 
"  Stromata,"  before  him.  Origen,  after  him,  wrote  one,  which 
Jerome  quotes  by  the  same  title.  The  "  Stromata  "  of  Clem- 
ent is  intended  to  be  a  sort  of  repository  of  choice  things.  It 
contains  a  collection  of  thoughts  on  a  great  variety  of  subjects, 
put  down  with  little  or  no  regard  to  connection  or  method. 
Du  Pin  compares  it  to  a  "  Turkey-work  carpet  "  ;  and  Clem- 
ent himself,  to  a  "  garden,  meadow,  or  wood,  containing  all 
sorts  of  herbs,  fi"uit,  flowers,  from  which  each  one  may  cull 
what  he  likes.  It  resembles,"  he  says  in  another  place,  "  not 
a  garden  laid  out  with  symmetry  to  please  the  eye,  but  rather 
a  thick  and  shady  mountain,  in  which  a  multitude  of  trees  (as 
the  cypress,  the  linden,  the  laurel,  the  apple,  olive  and  fig, 
and  others)  stand  in  one  blended  mass.  The  confusion  which 
reigns  through  it,"  he  says,  "  is  designed,  as  he  writes  partly 
for  the  initiated  and  partly  for  the  vulgar :  for  all  sorts  of 
knowledge  are  not  suited  to  all,  and  the  skilful  will  be  able  to 
select  from  the  work  what  is  valuable,  and  reject  the  worth- 


142  CLEMENT    OP    ALEXANDRIA. 

less ;  while  tlie  unskilful  will  not  be  injured  by  that  of  the  use 
of  which  he  is  ignorant:  just  as,  in  the  mountain  forest  alluded 
to,  the  laborer  or  adept  will  know  where  to  find  the  trees 
loaded  with  fruit,  which  will  remain  concealed  from  those  who 
would  rifle  them." 

The  work  is  divided  hito  eight  books.  We  are  not  about 
to  tax  the  patience  of  ourselves  or  of  our  readers  by  attempt- 
ing to  give  a  minute  account  of  its  contents.  The  following 
subjects  among  othei's  are  introduced  in  the  first  book  :  The 
benefits  writers  confer  on  their  readers  ;  Clement's  apology 
for  making  so  free  a  use  of  the  writings  of  philosophers  ; 
against  sophists,  and  pretenders  to  useless  science  ;  human 
arts,  not  less  than  a  knowledge  of  divine  things,  derived 
from  God  ;  philosophy,  the  handmaid  of  theology ;  virtue 
depends  on  culture,  and  is  aided  by  learning ;  philosophy  con- 
ducts to  Christ  and  to  virtue,  —  philosophy  not  of  a  particular 
sect,  but  eclecticism ;  the  sophistical  and  other  arts,  con- 
versant with  words  only,  useless ;  human  science  necessary 
to  the  right  understanding  of  the  Scriptures  ;  *  we  should  be 
more  solicitous  to  do  than  to  speak  Avell ;  the  wisdom  of  this 
world,  and  the  ]:)hilosopliy  which  the  Apostle  commands  us 
to  shun  ;  the  mysteries  of  faith  are  not  to  be  promulgated  to 
every  one,  since  all  are  not  fit  auditors  of  the  truth  ;  of  the 
various  sects  of  philosophers,  no  one  possesses  the  whole  truth, 
but  each  a  portion  of  it ;  succession  of  philosophers  among 
the  Greeks  ;  Grecian  philosophy  derived  mostly  from  the 
Barbarians  ;  other  arts  traced  to  the  same  source  :  in  what 
sense  the  Greek  philosophers,  coming  before  Christ,  may  be 
called  "'  thieves  and  robbers  "  ;  how  philosophy  aids  the  com- 
prehension of  divine  truth ;  the  laws  and  institutions  of  Moses 
more  ancient  than  the  Greek  philosophy  and  the  sources  of 
it ;  the  Greeks  derived  not  only  philosophy,  but  the  military 
art  also,  from  Moses ;  the  Greeks  were  children  in  respect  to 
the  Hebrews  and  their  institutions. 

The  second  book  treats  of  various  questions  relating  to  faith, 

*  "  It  is  true,"  Clement  says,  "  the  Apostles  were  unlearned ;  but  they  were 
guided  by  the  Spirit.  We  can  only  arrive  at  the  right  understanding  of  the 
lacred  volume  by  study  and  the  usual  modes  of  instruction."  (See  Kaye's 
Clement,  p.  119.) 


MYSTERIES    AND    ALLEGORIES.  143 

its  nature  and  end ;  of  the  use  made  of  fear  under  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  to  which,  it  seems,  Basilides  and  Valentinus  ob- 
jected ;  of  repentance  of  two  kinds  ;  of  hope  and  fear ;  of  the 
manner  in  which  those  passages  of  Scripture  are  to  be  under- 
stood which  ascribe  human  affections  to  God ;  of  the  laws  of 
Moses,  as  the  source  whence  the  Greeks  derived  their  whole 
knowledge  of  ethics  ;  of  other  things  pilfered  by  the  Greeks 
from  the  sacred  writers  ;  of  marriage.  This  is  defended  in 
the  third  book  against  various  heretics,  who,  for  different 
reasons,  condemned  it. 

The  fourth  book  contains  the  praises  of  martyrdom,  with 
various  observations  on  Christian  perfection,  or  true  Gnosti- 
cism ;  of  which,  however,  the  voluntary  offering  one's  self  a 
candidate  for  martyrdom  constituted  no  part. 

The  prevailing  topic  of  the  fifth  book  is  mysteries  and 
allegories,  in  which  religious  truths  have  been  wrapped  up 
among  almost  all  nations,  being  divulged  only  to  the  initiated. 
"  Thus  it  was,"  Clement  says,  "  among  the  Hebrews,  the 
Egyptians,  and  the  Greeks."  Obscurity  was  sometimes  af- 
fected to  stimulate  cu.riosity,  and  excite  to  diligence.  The 
apothegms  of  the  wise  men  of  Greece  exhibit  truth  under  a 
kind  of  veil,  being  delivered  in  a  symbolical  or  enigmatical 
dress  :  as,  for  example,  that  communicated  by  Pythagoras  to 
his  disciples,  "not  to  sail  on  dry  land  ;"  which,  according  to 
Clement,  contained  a  caution  not  to  engage  in  public  life. 
Clement,  too,  instances  the  Egyptian  hieroglyphics,  in  the 
celebrated  passage  to  which  the  attention  of  the  public,  has 
been  directed  by  recent  labors  of  the  learned,  and  particularly 
by  the  discoveries  of  Cliampollion.*  The  "  Ephesian  Letters'" 
were  another  example.  This  symbolical  mode  of  instruction 
Clement  regarded  as  favorable  to  "  sound  theology,  to  piety, 
to  the  manifestation  of  intelligence  and  wisdom,  and  to  the 
cultivation  of  brevity."  Tnitli,  he  thinks,  appears  "  more 
grand  and  awful  "  by  having  the  veil  of  mystery  thrown 
around  it.  "  Symbols  also,  being  susceptible  of  various  inter- 
pretations, exercise  the  ingenuity,  and  distinguish  the  ignorant 
man  from  the  Gnostic."  Then,  as  before  said,  he  thinks  that 
all  doctrines   ought  not  to  be  revealed  to  all,  as  all  are  not 

*  Stromata,  lib.  v.  c.  4,  p.  657. 


144  CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA. 

capable  of  receiving  them.  There  must  be  milk  for  babes, 
and  solid  food  for  grown  men.  Milk  is  catechetical  instruction, 
the  first  nourishment  of  the  soul :  soHd  food  is  contemplation, 
penetrating  all  mysteries.  Christ  himself  imparted  secret 
doctrines  to  the  few;  and  "the  arcana,"  or  mysteries,  says 
Clement,  "  are  committed  to  speech,  and  not  to  writing."  * 
Towards  the  close  of  the  fifth  book,  Clement  returns  with 
vigor  to  his  old  charge  against  the  Greek  philosophers,  of 
having  stolen  all  that  was  valuable  of  what  they  taught  from 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures ;  though  they  had  not  always  the  sense 
to  understand  what  they  stole,  and  often  disfigured  it  by  their 
absurd  commentaries  and  speculations. 

There  is  one  subject  treated  of  somewhat  at  large  in  the 
"  Stromata,"  and  to  which  the  sixth  and  seventh  books  espe- 
cially are  devoted,  which,  as  connected  with  the  history  of  opin- 
ions, is  not  destitute  of  interest,  and  which  seems  deserving 
of  a  more  particular  notice.  We  are  so  accustomed  to  think 
and  speak  of  the  Gnostics  as  a  heretical  sect  or  sects,  that  it 
hardly  occurs  to  us  that  the  term  was  ever  used  by  the  Fathers 
in  a  good  sense.  Yet  so  it  was.  There  was  the  true  or 
Christian  Gnostic,  and  the  philosophical  or  heretical  Gnostic. 
Clement  attempts  to  draw  a  portrait  of  the  former  ;  in  doing 
which,  he  gives  what,  in  his  view,  constituted  the  beautiful 
ideal,  or  finished  conception  of  the  perfect  Christian,  corre- 
sponding to  the  wise  man  of  the  Stoics,  from  which  some 
features  of  the  portrait  are  evidently  borrowed. 

We  know  not  whether  we  shall  succeed  in  so  bringing 
together  Clement's  materials  as  to  present  to  our  readers  a 
distinct  image  on  a  sufficiently  reduced  scale.  The  task  is  no 
easy  one  ;  for,  besides  that  we  must  study  brevity  as  much  as 
possible,  Clement's  description  is  in  many  respects  loose  and 
disjointed,  and  we  must  collect  and  unite  in  juxtaposition  the 
scattered  members  as  we  can.     However,  we  will  do  our  best. 

Who,  then,  is  the  true  or  Christian  Gnostic  ?  To  what 
does  he  aim  ?  and  how  attain  the  perfection  he  seeks  ?  In 
what  does  he  differ  from  the  common  believer,  in  regard  to 
knowledge,  in  regard  to  the  motives  of  action,  the  desires 
and  affections,  the  discharge  of  the  moral  and  social  duties, 
*  Stromata,  lib.  i.  c.  1,  p.  323. 


THE   TEUE   GNOSTIC,    OR   PERFECT   CHRISTIAN.  145 

his  piety  and  devotions,  and  the  general  complexion  of  his 
life? 

The  highest  point  of  Gnostic  perfection  —  that  at  which  he 
constantly  aims,  and  which  is  to  constitute  the  consummation 
of  his  felicity  in  heaven  —  is  the  contemplation  of  God  ;  for 
the  true  Gnostic  dwells  much  in  contemplation,  and,  through 
knowledge  and  love,  is  to  rise  at  last  to  the  condition  of  seeing 
God  face  to  face.  According  to  an  expression  of  Plato,  he 
contemplates  the  unseen  God  now  ;  and  is  already,  as  it  were, 
an  angel,  "  a  god  walking  in  the  flesh."  He  attains  not  this 
perfection  at  once,  but  by  degrees  and  through  long  discipline. 
His  progress  is  from  faith  to  knowledge  ;  and  knowledge,  per- 
fected by  love,  elevates  him  to  the  likeness  of  God.  His  final 
state  is  "perpetual  contemplation  of  God."  In  this  consists 
his  blessedness.  The  Gnostic  soul,  in  the  grandeur  of  con- 
templation, "  passes  beyond  the  state  of  the  several  holy 
orders,  with  reference  to  which  the  blessed  mansions  of  the 
gods  are  allotted,  and,  advancing  continually  from  better  to 
better  places,  embraces,  not  the  divine  contemplation  in  a 
mirror  or  through  a  glass,  but  feasts  eternally  upon  the  vision 
in  all  its  clearness,  —  that  vision  with  which  the  soul,  smitten 
with  boundless  love,  can  never  be  satiated  ;  and  enjoys  inex- 
haustible gladness  for  endless  ages,  honored  by  a  permanent 
continuance  in  all  excellence."  * 

The  Gnostic  Christian  differs  from  the  common  believer  in 
several  respects.  First,  in  knowledge.  The  ordinary  Chris- 
tian has  faith  ;  the  heretical  Christian,  opinion  :  but  the  true 
Gnostic,  or  perfect  Christian,  has  passed  beyond  faith  and 
opinion  to  knowledge  and  certainty.  With  him,  truth,  un- 
mixed with  error,  is  a  direct  object  of  perception  ;  and  he 
sees  in  it  all  its  native  lustre.  His  knowledge,  however,  is 
derived  through  faith ;  for  faith  is  the  foundation  on  which  the 
Gnostic  edifice  is  reared :  but  knowledge  is  superior  to  faith  ; 
and  this  is  his  distinguishing  possession.  This  knowledge 
Clement  makes  almost  boundless.  It  is  "  conversant  with 
things  beyond  the  world,  the  objects  of  the  intellect,  and  even 
with  things  more  spiritual,  which  eye  hath  not  seen  nor  ear 
heard,  nor  had  it  entered  into  the  heart  of  man  to  conceive, 
*  Stromata,  lib.  vii.  c.  3,  p.  835  ;  Kaye's  Clement,  pp.  254,  255. 

10 


146  CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA. 

until  our  Teacher  revealed  the  truth  concerning  them  to  us. 
For  we  affirm  that  the  Gnostic  knows  and  comprehends  all 
things,  —  even  those  which  pass  our  knowledge  :  such  were 
James,  Peter,  John,  Paul,  and  the  other  Apostles."*  — 
"Knowledge  is  a  contemplation  by  the  soul  of  one  or  more 
existing  things, —  pei'fect  knowledge  of  all."  The  Gnostic, 
and  he  alone,  knows  God  :  he  comprehends  the  first  Cause, 
and  the  Cause  begotten  by  him,  and  all  revelation  of  divine 
trutli  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  These  revelations 
embrace,  not  only  written  doctrine,  but  unwritten  tradition, 
sometimes  called  by  Clement  Gnostic  tradition,  which  was 
committed  to  the  above-named  Apostles,  to  be  by  them  com- 
municated to  their  successors  in  the  Church.  "  It  was  not 
designed  for  the  multitude,  but  communicated  to  those  only 
who  were  capable  of  receiving  it;  orally,  not  by  writing." 
This  knowledge,  Clement  says,  must  be  cautiously  imparted. 
The  Gnostic,  too,  possesses  the  spiritual  and  hidden  meaning 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  penetrates  the  mystical  sense  of  the 
Ten  Commandments.  He  is  versed  in  all  common  learning, 
—  arithmetic,  geometry,  physiology,  music,  astronomy,  and 
especially  logic ;  for  "  though  the  principal  end  of  man's 
creation  is  that  he  may  know  God,  yet  he  cultivates  the 
earth  and  measures  it,  —  and  studies  philosophy  that  he  may 
live,  and  live  well,  and  meditate  on  those  subjects  which  ad- 
mit of  demonstration." 

*  Kaye's  Clement,  p.  192.  In  anotlier  place,  Clement  says  that  the  true 
Gnostic,  or  perfect  Christian,  may  be  numbered  with  the  Apostles.  Peter, 
James,  John,  and  Paul  were  the  first  four,  and  the  greatest  Gnostics.  The 
first  three  were  with  Jesus  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  and  were  treated 
by  him  with  peculiar  distinction  ;  and  Paul  affirms  that  he  received  all  things 
from  immediate  revelation.  The  last  named  was  supposed  to  allude  to  the 
Gnostic  tradition  or  discipline,  when  he  speaks  of  the  wish  to  communicate 
to  the  Romans,  in  person,  some  spiritual  gifts  which  he  could  not  impart  in 
writing;  and  when,  addressing  the  Corinthian  converts,  he  says  that  he  could 
not  speak  unto  them  as  unto  spiritual,  but  as  unto  carnal.  In  what  this  esoteric 
instruction,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Fathers  to  be  transmitted  orally,  consisted, 
iocs  not  clearly  appear,  except  that  it  pertained  to  the  formation  of  the  Gnos- 
tic, or  perfect  character,  and  to  a  more  full  knowledge  of  mysteries,  and  the 
spiritual  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  than  was  befitting  the  common  ear.  The 
belief  of  it  among  the  Fathers  is  to  be  traced,  we  conceive,  to  that  strange 
mixture  of  philosophy  with  religion  which  took  place  on  the  conversion  of  thb 
later  Platonists  to  Christianity. 


THE   TRUE    GNOSTIC,    OR    PERFECT    CHRISTIAN.  147 

The  Gnostic,  too,  clitFers  from  the  common  believer  in  re- 
gard to  the  motives  of  action.  Every  action  of  the  Gnostic 
is  perfect,  being  performed  according  to  reason  and  knoAvl- 
edge ;  those  of  the  common  behever,  not  being  so  performed, 
are  of  a  middle  nature  ;  while  those  of  the  Heathen  are  posi- 
tively sinful,  wanting  the  right  motive  and  object.  The  ordi- 
nary Christian  is  influenced  by  fear,  or  hope  of  reward.  Not 
so  the  Gnostic  :  he  does  good  "  through  love,  and  because  he 
chooses  it  for  itself."  In  seeking  the  knowledge  of  God,  he 
has  no  reference  to  any  consequences  which  are  to  flow  from 
its  attainment :  "  the  knowledge  alone  is  the  motive  of  his 
contemplation."  "  Were  the  choice  proposed  to  him,  either 
to  know  God  or  to  obtain  eternal  salvation  (on  the  supposition 
that  the  two  could  be  separated),  he  would  choose  the  former." 
Again  :  "  The  Gnostic,  if  he  could  obtain  permission  of  God 
to  do  what  is  forbidden,  and  be  exempt  from  punishment ;  or 
if  he  could  receive  the  happiness  of  the  blessed  as  a  reward 
for  doing  it ;  or  if  it  even  were  possible  for  him  to  be  per- 
suaded that  he  could  escape  the  eye  of  God,  —  would  do 
nothing  contrary  to  right  reason,  having  once  chosen  that 
which  is  fair  and  eligible,  and  desirable  for  itself."*  The 
distinction  is  further  illustrated  in  the  case  of  martyrdom, 
to  which  the  common  Christian  submits  from  fear,  or  hope 
of  reward  ;  the  Gnostic,  or  perfect  Christian,  through  love. 
There  is  a  difference  in  actions  as  "  performed  through  fear 
or  perfected  in  love  "  ;  and,  consequently,  the  Gnostic  will  be 
more  highly  rewarded  than  the  simple  believer.  Dishonor, 
exile,  poverty,  death,  cannot  wrest  from  him  "liberty  and 
a  prevailing  love  towards  God,  which  bides  all  things  and 
endures  all  things  ;  for  love  is  persuaded  that  the  Divine 
Providence  orders  all  things  well."  We  pass  through  fear,  by 
which  we  are  led  to  abstain  from  injustice,  and  through  hope, 
by  which  we  aim  at  what  is  right,  to  love,  which  perfects  us, 
instructing  us  through  knowledge  (gnostically). 

Next,  as  respects  the  passions  and  desires.  The  character- 
istic of  the  Gnostic  is,  not  moderation  of  the  passions,  but 
exemption  from  them.     He  retains  those  appetites  necessary 

*  Kaye's  Clement,  pp.  169,  170. 


J.48  CLEMENT    OF   ALEXANDRIA. 

to  the  preservation  of  the  body;  as  hunger,  thirst,  and  others.* 
But  passion  and  desire  are  wholly  eradicated  from  his  breast. 
He  is  not  subject  to  pleasure  or  pain,  to  fear  or  to  anger. 
"  To  have  passiojis  which  require  to  be  controlled,  is  not  to  be 
in  a  state  of  purity."  Even  those  emotions  which  have  a  sem- 
blance of  good,  as  "  boldness,  emulation,  joy,"  are  not  felt  by 
the  true  Gnostic.  Clement  will  not  allow  that  the  perfect 
man  desires  even  good.  He  says,  in  the  true  spirit  of  mys- 
ticism, that  "  divine  love,"  by  which  the  Gnostic  is  distin- 
guished, "  is  not  a  -desire  on  the  part  of  him  who  loves,  but 
a  possession  of  the  object  loved.  The  Gnostic,  by  love,  has 
already  attained  to  that  in  which  he  is  to  be :  he  anticipates 
hope  through  knowledge ;  he  desires  nothing,  because  he  al- 
ready possesses,  as  far  as  it  is  possible,  the  object  of  desire."  f 

The  Gnostic  discharges  faithfully  all  the  moral  and  social 
duties,  and  is  particularly  active  in  doing  good.  "  His  first 
object  is  to  render,  first  himself,  then  his  neighbors,  as  good 
as  possible."  To  this  end  he  is  ready  to  instruct  them,  espe- 
cially in  the  way  of  salvation.  He  freely  forgives  injuries, 
and  cherishes  malice  against  none.  He  freely  parts  with 
money  to  those  who  have  need.  He  adheres  inflexibly  to 
truth  and  sincerity  at  every  cost.  He  refuses  to  take  an 
oath,  for  his  whole  life  is  an  oath.  From  moderating  his  pas- 
sions, and  finally  from  exemption  from  passion,  he  advances 
to  the  "  well-doing  of  Gnostic  perfection  "  ;  and  is,  "  even 
here,  equal  to  an  angel,  —  shining  Hke  the  sun  by  his  benefi- 
cence." 

The  Gnostic  is  distinguished  for  the  "  surpassing  greatness 
of  his  piety ; "  but  his  prayers  differ  in  some  respects  from 
those  of  the  common  believer.  "  The  Gnostic  alone,"  says 
Clement,  "  is  truly  pious,  and  worships  God  in  a  manner 
worthy  of  God."  He  has  grand  and  honorable  conceptions 
of  God,  to  whom  he  prays  in  thought,  and  not  with  the  voice  ; 
'or  the  language  of  God  to  him  is,  "  Think,  and  I  will  give." 

*  From  these  appetites  the  Saviour  was  exempt,  according  to  Clement. 
"  He  ate,  but  not  for  the  body,  which  was  held  together  by  a  holy  power," 
but  that  he  might  be  regarded  by  his  followers  as  a  real  man,  and  not  a  man  in 
appearance  only. 

t  Kaye's  Clement,  p.  194. 


HERETICAL    GNOSTICS.  149 

He  never  fails  of  obtaining  that  for  which  he  prays  ;  for  he 
prays  with  knowledge  and  discrimination.      "  His  confidence 
that  he  shall  obtain  that  for  which  he  asks,  constitutes  in  itself 
a  species  of  prayer."     "  He  prays  for  the  permanent  posses- 
sion of  that  which  is  really  good,  —  the  good  of  the  soul "  ; 
"  prays  for  perfect  love  "  ;    "  prays   that   he   may  grow   and 
abide  in  contemplation  ;   prays  that  he  may  never  fall  away 
from  virtue."     "At  the  same  time  he  prays,  he  himself  laboi's 
after  perfection  ;  for  he  who  holds  intercourse  with  God  must 
have  a  pure  and  spotless  soul."    Prayer,  united  with  righteous- 
ness, the  Gnostic  considers  as  the  "  best  and  holiest  sacrifice." 
"  The  really  holy  altar   is  the  righteous   soul."      "  He  does 
not,"  says  Clement,  "  pray  only  in  certain  places  and  at  stated 
times,  but  makes  his  whole  life  a  continued  act  of  prayer.    He 
knows  that  he  is  always  in  the  presence  of  God  ;  and  what- 
ever the  occupation  in  which  he  is  engaged,  whether  he  is  till- 
ing the  ground  or  sailing  on  the  sea,  he  sings,  and  gives  thanks 
to  God."     Again  :   "  His  whole  life  is  a  holy  festival  ;  his  sac- 
rifices are  prayers  and  praises,  and  reading  of  the  Scriptures 
before  meals ;  psalms  and  hymns  during  meals,  and  before  he 
retires  to  rest ;  prayers  again  during  the  night."     He  is  "  the 
truly  kingly  man  " ;  he  is  "  the  holy  priest  of  God."      "  He 
admits  not  even  in  his  dreams  that  which  is  said  or  done  or 
seen  for  the  sake  of  pleasure.     He  neither  gratifies  his  smell 
with  expensive  perfumes,  nor  his  taste  with  exquisite  dishes, 
and  variety  of  wines  ;  he  renders  not  his  soul  effeminate  by 
wreaths  of  fragrant  flowers."  *     Such,  according  to  Clenient, 
is  tlie  perfect  Christian,  or  true  Gnostic,  as  distinguished  from 
the  common  believer. 

We  are  indebted  to  Clement  for  no  inconsiderable  part  of 
the  knowledge  we  possess  of  the  several  sects  of  heretical 
Gnostics,  But  we  have,  at  present,  no  space  to  devote  to 
these  sects,  were  we  disposed  to  enter  on  the  subject.  Of  all 
the  heresies  which  sprung  up  in  the  bosom  of  the  early  Church, 
Gnosticism,  from  the  conspicuous  part  it  long  played,  the  lofti- 
ness of  its  pretensions,  the  learning  and  skill  of  several  of  its 
chiefs,  and  the  traces  it  left  behind,  and  which  remained  long 

*  See  Kaye's  Clement,  pp.  211-213,  247-249. 


150  CLEMENT    OF    ALEXANDRIA. 

visible  after  the  system  itself  had  crumbled  away  and  disap' 
peared,  furnishes  most  matter  of  curiosity  and  wonder,  and 
presents  the  strongest  claim  to  the  attention  of  the  philo- 
sophical inquirer.  Some  of  its  fables  have  a  charm  for  us. 
In  their  origin,  the  Gnostics  were  the  purists,  the  spiritualists, 
the  dreamers,  of  their  day  :  but,  in  their  speculations,  were 
wild,  hardy,  reckless ;  yet,  withal,  dogmatists  of  the  first 
water.  They  occasionally  delight  us  with  ingenious  fictions 
and  beautiful  and  significant  allegories  ;  but,  in  our  attempts 
to  follow  them,  we  soon  find  ourselves  involved  in  intricate 
and  precipitous  passes,  over  which  broods  a  darkness  that  may 
be  felt. 

We  conclude  with  a  quotation  which  might,  perhaps,  have 
been  more  appropriately  introduced  in  connection  with  the 
passage,  a  part  of  which  we  extracted  in  our  second  chapter, 
in  which  Clement  compares  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  effects  he 
wrought,  to  the  Grecian  Orpheus  and  his  wonder-working 
music*  The  language  and  the  sentiment  of  the  quotation,  in 
themselves  sufficiently  remarkable,  will  present,  to  those  who 
are  fond  of  tracing  analogies  and  resemblances,  matter  of 
somewhat  curious  speculation,  from  their  coincidence,  singular 
enough  if  accidental,  with  those  of  the  old  Father.  In  truth, 
the  wayward  and  fantastic  genius  to  which  we  owe  that  iinique 
work,  "Sartor  Resartus,"  —  for  from  that  we  quote,  —  has 
but  given  us  Clement  in  a  different  dress.  "  Were  it  not 
wonderful,"  this  is  its  language,  "  for  instance,  had  Orpheus 
built  the  walls  of  Thebes  by  the  mere  sound  of  his  lyre  ? 
Yet  tell  me,  who  built  these  walls  of  Weissnichtwo,  summon- 
ing out  all  the  sandstone  rocks  to  dance  along  from  the  Stein- 
bruch  (now  a  huge  troglodyte  chasm,  with  frightful,  green- 
mantled  pools),  and  shape  themselves  into  Doric  and  Ionic 
pillars,  squared  ashlar  houses,  and  noble  streets  ?  Was  it  not 
the  still  higher  Orpheus,  or  Orpheuses,  who  in  past  centuries, 
by  the  divine  music  of  wisdom,  succeeded  in  civilizing  man  ? 
Our  highest  Orpheus  walked  in  Judea,  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago.     His  sphere-melody,  flowing  in  wild  native  tones, 

*  The  comparison  (of  Christ  to  Orpheus)  appears  also  in  works  of  Chris- 
tian art.  Thus  in  the  Catacombs,  Christ  is  represented  in  paintings  in  the 
•brm  of  this  old  master  of  song,  holding  the  lyre  in  his  hand 


CHRIST   AND   ORPHEUS.  151 

took  captive  the  ravished  souls  of  men ;  and  being,  of  a  truth, 
sphere-melody,  still  flows  and  sounds,  though  now  with  thou- 
sand-fold accompaniments  and  rich  symphonies,  through  all 
our  hearts,  and  modulates  and  divinely  leads  them."* 

•  Pp.  264,  265. 


ORIGEN,  AND   HIS   THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Alexandrian  Theology.  —  Birth  and  Parentage  of  Origen.  — 
His  Childhood.  —  He  pants  for  the  Honors  of  Martyrdom.  — 
Reduced  to  Poverty,  and  becomes  a  Teacher.  —  At  the  Head  op 
the  Catechetical  School. — His  Self -Denial. — His  Studies. — 
Biblical  Criticism. — Worth  of  Secular  Learning. 

We  must  detain  our  readers  a  little  longer  in  the  land  of 
the  Pyramids  and  the  Nile,  whither  we  recently  went  to  pass 
a  little  time  in  companionship  with  Clement,  contemplating 
the  state  of  things  there  at  that  period,  and  looking  at  his 
defences  of  Christianity  and  his  theology,  at  the  habits  and  life 
of  the  Alexandrians  of  his  day,  and  at  his  idea  or  conception 
of  the  perfect  Christian.  We  alluded  to  one  of  his  pupils,  — 
a  greater  than  he.  This  was  Origen,  one  of  the  most  emi- 
nent of  the  early  Fathers,  not  only  for  his  intellectual  gifts  and 
attainments,  but  also  on  account  of  the  influence  of  his  opin- 
ions on  subsequent  ages,  and  the  violent  controversies  to  which 
they  gave  rise, —  controversies  which  continued  down  to  mod- 
ern times.  He  had  a  brilliant  reputation  in  his  day,  and  his 
substantial  merits  and  the  prestige  of  his  name  entitle  him  to 
a  prominent  place  in  Christian  biography.  What  was  said 
in  connection  with  Clement  of  the  speculative  character  of  the 
Greek  mind,  and  the  condition  of  theology  at  Alexandria,  late 
in  the  second  and  early  in  the  third  centuries,  must  be  borne 
in  mind  by  those  who  would  comprehend  fully  the  position, 
labors,  and  merits  of  Origen.  The  materials  for  his  life  are 
far  more  copious  than  for  that  of  Justin  Martyr  or  Clement. 

Origen,  called  Adamantius,  or  the  Adamantine,  from  his 
"iron  diligence"  and  almost  incredible  labors,  or  as  others 


HIS    YOUTH.  153 

say,  from  the  irrefragable  strength  of  his  arguments,  was  a 
native,  as  is  generally  supposed,  of  Alexandria,  —  certainly 
of  Egypt.  Unlike  Justin  and  Clement,  who  were  born  and 
educated  Heathens,  he  was  of  Christian  parentage.  He  was 
born  in  the  year  185  or  186 ;  and,  while  yet  a  child,  exhib- 
ited that  patience  of  labor,  inquisitive  spirit,  and  ardor,  which 
marked  the  future  man.  He  was  an  example  of  extraordinary 
precocity,  which  led  Jerome  to  call  him  a  "  great  man  from 
his  infancy."  His  father  was  Leonides,  an  earnest  Christian, 
and,  as  Ave  are  told,  a  teacher  of  rhetoric.  He  gave  his  son  a 
thorough  literary  education,  instructing  him  in  the  rudiments 
of  the  sciences,  but  especially  directing  his  attention  to  a  study 
of  the  Scriptures,  a  portion  of  which  he  every  day  committed 
to  memory,  often  perplexing  his  father  with  deep  questions 
about  the  sense.  For  this,  the  father  made  show  of  chiding 
him,  and  told  him  that  he  must  remain  satisfied  with  the  plain 
and  obvious  meanino;  of  what  he  read,  and  not  eno;ao;e  in 
researches  beyond  his  years.  But  the  overflowings  of  parental 
affection  could  not  be  repressed  ;  and  the  happy  father,  re- 
strained by  a  sense  of  duty  to  his  child  from  manifesting  all 
he  felt,  was  accustomed  to  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity, 
while  he  slept,  of  repairing  to  his  couch ;  and,  bending  over 
him,  would  kiss  his  breast,  in  reverence  for  the  divine  spirit 
which  lay  enshrined  there. 

Eusebius,  who  has  preserved  some  notices  *  of  his  life, 
gathered,  as  he  informs  us,  partly  from  his  letters  and  partly 
from  the  reports  of  his  pupils  (of  whom  some  still  survived  to 
his  day),  dwells  at  some  length  on  the  evidences  of  piety  and 
zeal  in  the  cause  of  Christianity  exhibited  by  the  youthful 
Origen.  He  was  warm  and  enthusiastic  ;  and,  even  in  child- 
hood, the  zeal  of  a  martyr  burned  in  his  breast.  Persecution 
now  raged  at  Alexandria,  and  it  was  with  difficulty  that  he 
could  be  prevented  from  imperilling  his  life.  When  his  father 
was  thrown  into  prison,  he  was  eager  to  go  and  die  with  him ; 
and  was  prevented,  at  last,  only  by  a  stratagem  of  his  mother. 
Alarmed  for  his  safety,  she  used  every  method  of  remonstrance 
and  entreaty  to  inspire  him  with  reserve  and  caution.  In  vain 
she  urged  a  mother's  love.  In  despair  of  other  means,  she  at 
*  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi. 


154  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS   THEOLOGT. 

last  resorted  to  the  artifice  of  hiding  his  clothes ;  in  conse- 
quence of  which,  he  was  compelled  to  remain  at  home.  Thus 
debarred  the  privilege  of  visiting  his  father  in  prison,  he  com- 
posed and  sent  him  a  letter  full  of  noble  and  elevated  senti- 
ments on  the  subject  of  martyrdom,  and  especially  urging  him 
to  constancy.  The  letter  has  perished ;  but  a  single  sentence 
of  it,  preserved  by  Eusebius,  sufficiently  indicates  the  strain  in 
which  it  was  written.  "  Beware  that  you  do  not  change  your 
purpose  on  account  of  us  !  "  Leonides  remained  firm  ;  and 
by  his  death  (a.  d.  202),  and  the  confiscation  of  his  goods 
which  followed,  Origen,  at  about  seventeen  years  of  age,  with 
six  brothers  and  his  now  widowed  mother,  was  reduced  at 
once  to  extreme  poverty.*  How  the  mother  and  younger 
children  fared ;  how  they  struggled  through  and  finished  the 
great  battle  of  life,  —  serious  to  them  as  it  has  been  to  multi- 
tudes since,  —  we  are  not  told.  They  are  now  dropped  from 
the  narrative,  which  follows  the  fortunes  of  the  eldest  son. 

A  youth  of  such  promise  —  ardent,  noble,  and  full  of  aspira- 
tion —  could  not  be  long  without  friends.  A  lady  of  great 
wealth  and  high  standing  at  Alexandria  received  him  to  her 
house,  and  generously  provided  for  his  wants.  But  she  had 
another  guest  (one  Paul  of  Antioch),  whom  she  had  adopted 
as  her  son,  and  whom  she  allowed  to  give  lectures  in  her 
house.  He  was  a  man  of  some  celebrity,  according  to  Euse- 
bius ;  but,  unfortunately,  an  arch-heretic.  Yet  such  were  the 
charms  of  his  eloquence,  that  his  society  was  generally  sought ; 
and  multitudes  pressed  to  hear  his  discourses, — heretics  among 
the  rest.  But  Origen,  having  been  from  a  child  "  sound  in  the 
faith  "  himself,  and  "  abominating  all  heretical  doctrines,"  says 
the  historian  just  referred  to,  could  never  be  induced  to  unite 
with  him  in  prayer.f  In  truth,  he  could  not  endure  the  man, 
who  was  probably  a  Gnostic.  Whether  his  aversion  to  Paul 
induced  him  voluntarily  to  withdraw,  or  his  departure  is  to  be 
attributed  to  some  other  cause,  certain  it  is,  that  he  soon  left 
his  patroness,  and  supported  himself  by  teaching  grammar  and 
the  studies  connected  with  it,  to  which  he  added  instruction  in 
Christianity  to  such  of  the  Pagans  as  desired  it.  For  this  task 
he  was  well  qualified  by  the  pious  care  of  his  father  and  his 
*  Jerome,  De  Vir.  Illust.,  c.  64.  t  Hist.,  vi.  2. 


HIS    SELF-DENIAL.  155 

own  studious  habits,  and  from  having  been,  when  a  boy,  a 
pupil  of  Clement,  who  for  several  years  presided  over  the 
Christian  School  at  Alexandria,  with  no  ordinary  fame. 
Clement,  however,  had  now  retired  or  been  driven  from  the 
province ;  and  the  most  eminent  Christians  having  been  put 
to  death,  or  dispersed  by  the  terrors  of  the  persecution,  the 
catechetical  chair  remained  vacant.  At  this  time,  Origen, 
being  now  in  his  eighteenth  year,  consented  to  occupy  it,* 
surrounded  as  it  was  with  danger ;  and  was  afterwards,  as 
Jerome  informs  us,  confirmed  in  the  office  of  catechist  by  De- 
metrius, his  bishop,  f  Of  his  early  pupils,  several,  in  a  short 
time,  obtained  the  honors  of  martyrdom,  —  some  while  yet 
receiving  the  rudiments  of  Christianity.  Among  the  latter 
was  a  female  by  the  name  of  Herais,  who,  to  use  Origen's 
expression,  "  received  baptism  by  fire." 

That  the  youthful  and  ardent  Origen  escaped  with  his  life, 
appears  almost  miraculous  ;  for  his  labors  in  the  cause  of 
Christianity  were  open  and  unremitted.  He  continued  to 
make  converts ;  and,  when  they  were  apprehended  and  thrown 
into  prison,  he  sought  them  out,  and  afforded  them  the  con- 
solation of  his  presence  and  conversation.  He  sometimes 
followed  them  to  the  place  of  execution,  and  was  with  them 
in  their  last  moments.  His  boldness,  indeed,  seems  to  have 
been  near  costing  him  his  life.  He  became  an  object  of  popu- 
lar hatred,  on  account  of  the  number  of  converts  who  I'esorted 
to  his  standard.  For  a  time,  he  was  hotly  pursued :  he  fled 
from  house  to  house  for  shelter ;  and,  as  Eusebius  seems  to 
intimate,  was  compelled  to  leave  the  city.  If  so,  however,  his 
absence  was  short.  His  sufferings  served  only  to  fan  the  flame 
of  his  piety ;  and  the  multitudes  who  were  eager  to  listen 
to  his  eloquent  expositions  of  the  Christian  faith  daily  aug- 
mented. About  this  time,  he  broke  up  his  grammar-school, 
finding  that  his  attention  to  his  pupils  interfered  with  his  devo- 
tion to  sacred  learning,  and  with  his  duties  as  a  teacher  of 
religion.  He  also  sold  his  library  of  Heathen  authors,  which 
is  said  to  have  been  choice  and  extensive,  for  an  annuity  of 
about  fivepence  a  day,  to  be  paid  by  the  purchaser.  On  this 
he  subsisted  for  many  years ;  subjecting  himself  to  fatigue  and 
*  Euseb.  Hist.,  vi.  3.  t  De  Vir.  lllust.,  c.  54. 


156  ORIGEN,    AND   HIS   THEOLOGY. 

labors  during  the  day,  and  consuming  the  greater  part  of  the 
night  in  study.  He  often  slept  on  the  earth,  disdaining  the 
effeminacy  of  a  bed.  He  interpreted  rigorously,  to  the  letter, 
some  of  the  precepts  of  our  Saviour,  which  have  been  gen- 
erally considered  as  either  local  and  temporary,  or  as  requir- 
ing to  be  somewhat  modified  in  their  application  to  practice. 
Among  them  were  those  in  which  he  exhorts  his  disciples,  as 
Eusebius  expresses  it,  not  to  have  two  coats,  nor  to  wear 
shoes.  Another  instance  of  his  absurd  compliance  with  the 
letter  of  the  command,  for  which  he  afterwards  blamed  him- 
self, is  sufficiently  well  known.  In  fact,  he  imposed  on  himself 
the  most  severe  restraints  ;  going  barefooted  for  many  years, 
and  abstaining  from  wine  and  all  generous  food.  His  friends 
were  alarmed  for  the  consequences,  and  begged  him,  with  tears 
and  grief  for  his  apparent  misery,  to  accept  of  their  substance 
for  the  supply  of  his  wants  ;  but  he  persevered  till  symptoms 
of  impaired  health  at  length  convinced  him  of  his  folly  and 
danger.* 

His  ascetic  and  "  philosophical  course  of  life,"  as  it  is  called, 
contributed  to  heighten  the  effect  produced  by  his  fervid  genius 
and  eloquence  ;  and  he  obtained  an  unbounded  popularity  and 
influence. 

At  what  period  he  listened  to  the  instructions  of  Ammonius 
Saccas,  the  celebrated  Platonic  philosopher,  we  are  not  in- 
formed. It  was  probably  not  until  some  time  after  he  had 
entered  on  his  labors  as  master  of  the  Catechetical  School. 
That  he  was  for  some  time  his  pupil,  is  expressly  asserted  by 
Porphyry,  as  quoted  by  Eusebius, f  and  may  be  inferred  from 
a  letter  of  Origen  himself,  part  of  which  is  preserved  by  the 
same  historian.  Among  the  disciples  of  Ammonius,  however, 
thei'e  aj)pears  to  have  been  another  of  the  same  name,  who,  as 
is  generally  admitted  by  the  best  modern  critics,  has  been  im- 
properly confounded  with  Origen  Adamantius.  The  latter 
had,  no  doubt,  acquired  a  partiality  for  the  Platonic  philosophy, 
as  then  taught  in  Egypt,  under  his  early  preceptor,  Clement. 
This  partiality  was  confirmed  in  the  school  of  Ammonius ;  from 
whom,  and  from  the  writings  of  Plato  and  other  philosophers, 
which  were  now  constantly  in  his  hands,  having  imbibed,  saya 
»  Euseb.  llist.,  vi.  3.  t  Hist.,  vi.  19. 


HIS    HEBREW    STUDIES.  157 

Porphyry,  tlie  "  allegorical  mode  of  explaining  the  Grecian 
mysteries,  he  applied  it  to  the  Jewish  Scriptures."  Of  his 
proficiency  in  the  Platonic  and  Ammonian  philosophy,  how- 
ever, and  the  unnatural  and  absurd  expositions  of  the  language 
of  the  Bible  to  which  he  and  his  fellow-laborers  resorted  in 
order  to  reduce  its  doctrines  into  harmony  with  that  corrupt 
and  fanciful  system,  we  have  testimony  less  exceptionable  than 
that  of  Porphyry.  But  we  shall  have  occasion  to  advert  to 
this  topic  hereafter,  especially  in  treating  of  the  opinions  of 
this  celebrated  Father. 

After  the  death  of  Severus,  Origen  allowed  himself  the  rel- 
axation of  a  journey  to  Rome  ;  having  a  desire,  as  he  expresses 
it,  to  "  see  the  most  ancient  church  of  the  Romans."  This 
journey,  as  Eusebius  and  Jerome  inform  us,  took  place  while 
Zephyrinus  was  Bishop  of  Rome  ;  that  is,  some  time  before 
the  year  219.  After  a  short  stay,  he  returned  to  Alexandria, 
where  he  resumed  his  duties  as  catechist.  Soon  after  this,  the 
increasing  multitude  of  inquirers  and  pupils — by  which  he 
was  continually  surrounded  from  morning  till  evening  —  made 
it  necessary  for  him  to  engage  an  assistant.  The  person  ap- 
pointed to  the  office  was  Heraclas,  formerly  Origen's  pupil,  his 
fellow-student  under  Ammonius,  and  afterwards  Bishop  of 
Alexandria.  Origen  continued  to  give  instruction  in  the  more 
recondite  doctrines  to  the  higher  classes,  the  task  of  teaching 
the  simpler  and  more  elementary  principles  being  committed 
to  his  associate ;  who  still,  however,  as  Jerome  tells  us,  con- 
tinued to  wear  the  philosopher's  garb. 

From  this  time,  Origen  devoted  himself  with  great  ardor  to 
the  study  of  the  sacred  writings ;  and,  as  a  preparatory  step, 
set  about  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  language. 
He  is  mentioned  as  the  earliest  among  the  Fathers  who 
attempted  to  obtain  an  acquaintance  with  this  language  ;  and 
by  "  what  he  did  in  it,"  says  Jerome,  "  acquired  fame  all 
over  Greece."  The  taste  of  his  nation  and  age  opposed  a 
barrier  to  acquisitions  of  this  sort.  The  Hebrew  language 
and  literature  boi'e  among  the  Greeks  the  epithet  barbaric; 
but  Origen  had  the  courage,  in  this  instance,  to  despise  the 
silly  prejudices  of  the  times.  Though  he  never  appears  to 
have  become  a  profound  critic  in  Hebrew,  and  his  knowledge 


158  ORIGEN,    AND   HIS   THEOLOGY. 

of  it,  compared  with  that  of  more  modern  scholars,  was  super- 
ficial and  scanty,  yet,  taking  into  view  the  character  of  the 
age,  we  must  allow  that  his  efforts  entitle  him  to  no  mean 
praise.  With  him  originated  what  has  since  been  called  the 
science  of  bibhcal  criticism.  The  Greek  version  of  the  Sev- 
enty, as  it  was  called,  was  to  Christians  of  his  time  what  the 
English  version  of  King  James's  translators  is  to  common 
Christians  of  the  present  day.  But  errors  had  crept  into  the 
text ;  and  Origen,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  applied  his  knowl- 
edge of  Hebrew,  whatever  it  was,  to  the  very  laudable  pur- 
pose of  removing  them.  This  was  the  origin  of  the  "  Hexa- 
pla,"  for  which  he  probably  began  to  collect  materials  about 
this  time. 

The  fame  of  Origen  was  now  wide-spread ;  and  it  drew 
around  him,  as  we  are  told,  a  multitude  of  heretics,  and  not 
a  few  Gentile  philosophers,  some  of  them  men  of  repute :  for, 
besides  divinity,  he  at  this  time  taught  geometry,  mathematics, 
and  all  parts  of  secular  learning,  embracing  the  tenets  of  the 
various  philosophical  sects ;  through  which  he  conducted  his 
hearers,  commenting  on  the  most  distinguished  writers  of  each 
sect,  and  explaining  the  principles  of  all.  He  thus  obtained 
the  reputation  of  a  philosopher  among  the  Pagans.  He  was 
an  advocate  for  the  study  of  philosophy  and  secular  literature, 
thinking  that  they  formed  a  good  preparation  for  the  investi- 
gation of  divine  truth.  He  therefore  cheerfully  received  all 
who  applied  to  him  for  instruction ;  hoping,  while  teaching 
them  human  science,  to  be  able  to  convert  them  to  the  faith 
of  Jesus.  In  this  benevolent  design  he  often  succeeded. 
Many  who  afterwards  became  celebrated  teachers  of  the 
church  proceeded  from  his  school,  having  been  first  won  over 
to  Christianity  by  his  persuasive  eloquence. 

His  devotion  to  philosophy  did  liot  escape  censure.  In  a 
letter,  he  justifies  his  attention  to  secular  learning,  on  the 
ground  of  its  utility ;  for  as  many  heretics  and  others,  skilled 
in  the  Grecian  philosophy,  resorted  to  him,  it  seemed  desirable, 
and  almost  a  matter  of  necessity,  that  he  should  thoroughly 
investigate  the  principles  of  the  several  philosophical  sects. 
He,  moreover,  appeals  to  examples  ;  and,  among  others,  to 
that   of    Pantaenus,   formerly   president    of  the    Catechetical 


SECULAR  LEARNING.  159 

School.  The  taste  for  philosophy,  thus  introduced,  was  des- 
tined not  to  be  soon  extinct.  A  controversy  for  some  years 
existed  between  the  friends  and  enemies  of  philosophical 
studies ;  but  the  advocates  of  philosophy  triumphed ;  and  the 
consequence  in  this  instance  was,  that  the  simplicity  of  the 
Christian  faith  was  corrupted,  and  an  infinity  of  errors  flowed 
into  the  Church. 


160  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS    THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  11. 

Influence  of  Ambrose.  —  Oeigen's  Immense  Labors.  —  His  Arabia:* 
Journey,  AND  Visit  to  Palestine.  —  Reception  by  the  Paiestinian 
Bishops.  —  Anger  of  Demetrius.  —  Origen's  Journey  to  Greece. 
—  Ordained  in  Palestine.  —  Demetrius  causes  him  to  be  deposed 

AND  excommunicated.  —  DeATH    OF    DeMETRIUS. 

Among  Origen's  pliilosopliical  converts  was  tlie  Gnostic 
Ambrose,  whose  acquaintance,  soon  ripening  into  the  warmest 
friendship,  was  destined  to  exert  a  marked  influence  over  his 
future  pursuits.  Ambrose  was  a  man  of  weahh  and  rank. 
He  was,  says  Jerome,  "  of  a  noble  family,  and  of  no  mean  and 
inelegant  genius,  as  his  letters  to  Origen  testify."  Eusebius 
calls  him  a  Valentinian  ;  others,  a  Marcionite  ;  but,  becoming 
a  hearer  of  Adamantius,  he  was  soon  converted  by  him  to  the 
true  faith,  and  afterwards  greatly  assisted  in  promoting  his 
biblical  studies.  He  devoted  his  wealth  to  his  service  in  the 
purchase  of  manuscripts.  He  also  furnished  him  with  more 
than  seven  scribes,  who  should  relieve  each  other  as  his  aman- 
uenses ;  and  as  many  others,  besides  girls,  who  should  tran- 
scribe in  a  fair  hand  what  the  first  had  hastily  Avritten  from 
dictation.  Origen  calls  him  his  "  work-driver."  His  admira- 
tion of  Origen  was  unbounded ;  and  he  urged  him  to  consent 
to  the  publication  of  his  writings,  for  the  benefit  of  the  world. 

Origen,  all  this  time,  was  undoubtedly  overworked.  The 
zeal  of  his  friend  he  did  not  wish  to  outstrip  his  own.  In  a 
letter,  he  says  that  the  collation  of  manuscripts  left  him  no 
time  to  eat ;  and  that,  after  meals,  he  could  neither  go  out  nor 
enjoy  a  season  of  rest.  Even  the  night,  he  says,  was  not 
granted  him  for  repose.  His  mind  was  tasked  every  hour. 
Along  with  the  collation  and  correction  of  manuscripts  pro- 
cured him  by  the  wealth  of  his  friend,  his  "  work-driver,"  he 
was  writing  commentaries,  afterwards  published,  on  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  and  producing  other  works ;  among 
which  was  that  entitled  "  Of  Principles,"  in  Avhich  he  mixed 


HIS   POPULARITY.  161 

up  with  Christian  truth  some  wild  philosophical  speculations 
or  Platonic  extravagances,  which  afterwards,  when  the  tide 
partially  turned  against  him,  gave  him  some  trouble.  He 
subsequently,  in  a  letter  to  Fabian,  Bishop  of  Rome,  affirmed 
that  there  were  some  things  contained  in  the  book  which  he 
no  longer  approved,  and  that  the  work  was  published  by  his 
friend  Ambrose  against  his  will.  Origen  was  a  hasty  writer, 
of  a  warm  and  prolific  imagination  ;  and,  throwing  off  his 
productions  at  a  heat,  would  be  very  likely  to  say  things 
which  his  calmer  judgment  might  condemn. 

At  this  moment,  his  fortunes  seemed  at  full  tide.  No 
voice  appears  to  have  been  lifted  against  him,  and  his  fame 
was  filling  all  Christendom.  Honors  were  ready  to  drop  on 
his  head ;  but,  at  the  same  moment,  there  was  stirred  up  a 
spirit  of  envy  and  hatred ;  and  he  was  about  to  taste  the  bitter 
cup'  of  persecution,  presented  by  Christian  hands.  Of  this 
cup  he  drank  copiously  during  his  life  ;  and,  ages  after  his 
death,  the  storm  of  controversy  beat  on  his  memory,  which 
was  tossed,  as  it  were,  on  a  raging  sea  that  knew  no  rest. 
The  prelatical  zealots  were  prepared  to  attack  him  ;  but  pri- 
vate passions  hastened  the  conflict. 

There  is  one  incident,  however,  we  must  mention,  before 
we  proceed  to  notice  the  effect  of  these  passions,  —  Origen's 
Arabian  journey.  This  was  undertaken  in  compliance  with 
letters  from  an  Arabian  prince,  to  whose  ears  his  fame  had 
penetrated.  They  were  brought  by  a  soldier,  and  addressed 
to  Demetrius,  his  bishop,  and  to  the  Governor  of  Egypt, 
requesting  that  Origen  might  be  sent  to  him  to  explain  the 
Christian  doctrines.  This  task  accomplished,  he  returns  to 
Egypt.* 

The  cruel  Caracalla  now  filled  the  throne  of  the  Caesars  ; 
and  having,  as  he  conceived,  some  cause  of  displeasure  against 
the  Alexandrians,  he  resolved  on  their  destruction,  and  un- 
known multitudes  were  slaughtered.  Origen,  finding  his 
residence  there  now  unsafe,  yields  to  his  long-cherished  desire 
to  visit  his  friends  in  Palestine,  especially  his  old  fi'iend  and 
fellow-student  Alexander,  now  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  The- 
octistus,  Bishop  of  Cassarea.     Here  he  took  up  his  abode  for  a 

*  Euseb.  Hist.,  vi.  19. 
11 


162  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS   THEOLOGY. 

time.  He  was  received  with  demonstrations  of  great  respect, 
and  was  urged  by  the  bishops  to  preach  and  expound  the 
Scriptures  pubhclj  in  their  presence.  Witli  this  request  he 
comphed,  though  he  had  not  yet  received  ordination.  This 
moved  the  wrath  of  Demetrius,  the  Alexandrian  bishop,  who 
was  full  of  hierarchical  pride,  and  was  jealous  of  the  brilliant 
fame  of  Origen ;  and  he  writes  letters  of  remonstrance  to  the 
Palestinian  bishops.  It  was  irregular,  he  said,  nay,  was  un- 
heard of,  that  a  layman  should  preach  in  the  presence  of  bish- 
ops. The  bishops  of  Palestine  are  not  intimidated.  They 
write  back  to  him  of  Alexandria,  telling  him  that  he  is  in 
error,  and  specifying  several  instances  which  might  be  adduced 
in  justification  of  themselves  and  of  Origen.  Demetrius  is 
obliged  to  be  quiet ;  but  the  arrow  rankled  in  his  breast. 
Origen  is  soon  after  recalled  to  Alexandria,  and  is  allowed  to 
resume  his  catechetical  laboi's  and  his  commentaries.  He  was 
at  this  time  a  little  over  thirty  years  of  age. 

Origen 's  next  journey  was  into  Greece ;  whither  he  was 
sent  for  the  purpose  of  counteracting  the  designs  of  certain 
heretics  then  in  high  repute  there.  On  his  way,  he  visited 
Palestine ;  and  while  there,  wholly  unsolicited  on  his  part,  the 
bishops  of  Jerusalem,  Cgesarea,  and  others  of  the  province, 
ordained  him  presbyter,  at  the  age  of  about  forty-three  or 
forty-four.  Demetrius  was  outrageous  at  this  second  act  of 
disrespect  and  insult,  as  he  regarded  it,  to  himself.  Origen 
pursues  his  journey,  during  which  he  visits  the  schools  of 
philosophy  at  Athens,  and  converses  with  the  eminent  sages 
found  there.  It  was  probably  during  this  journey  that  he 
had  the  interview,  mentioned  by  Eusebius,  with  Mammsea, 
mother  of  the  emperor,  Alexander  Severus.  Mammaea  has 
been  considered  a  Pagan;  yet,  being  at  Antioch,  she  felt  a 
curiosity  to  see  and  converse  with  a  man  of  whom  she  had 
heard  so  much ;  and  she  sent  a  military  guard  to  insure  his 
safety,  and  escort  him  to  her  presence.* 

But  he  had  now  to  return  to  Alexandria,  and  face  his  bishop, 

the  angry  Demetrius,  who  could  never  forget  nor  forgive  the 

Palestinian  ordination.    No  reconciliation  can  be  effected ;  and 

Demetrius  soon  after  assembles  a  synod,  composed  of  his  own 

*  Euseb.  Hist.,  vi.  21  ;  Jerome,  De  Vir.  Illust.,  c.  64. 


HIS   EXCOMMUNICATION.  163 

presbyters  and  of  other  Egyptian  bishops,  who  proceed  to  de- 
prive Origen  of  the  rank  of  presbyter,  and  prohibit  him  from 
ever  after  exercising  the  office  of  teacher  in  the  Alexandrian 
church.  Origen  remains  awhile  at  Alexandria,  then  bids 
adieu  to  the  city  forever,  and  takes  refuge  with  his  friends  in 
Palestine.  But  the  hatred  of  Demetrius  still  pursues  him. 
Turning  over  the  writings  of  Origen,  especially  his  book  "  Of 
Principles,"  just  referred  to,  he  now  snuflPs,  or  aifects  to  snuff, 
the  taint  of  heresy  in  some  of  the  writer's  idealistic  specula- 
tions ;  on  which  he  assembles  a  larger  synod  of  Egyptian  bish- 
ops, who  cut  off  Origen  from  the  communion  of  the  Church, 
and  issue  against  him  a  violent  invective. 

Behold  now  the  most  celebrated  scholar,  biblical  critic,  and 
commentator  of  his  times, —  who  knew  more  than  all  his  per- 
secutors combined,  and  performed  mox'e  labor  in  the  cause  of 
Christianity  than  any  dozen  of  them  put  together,  —  behold 
him  now  an  excomnmnicated  man.  His  heresy  served  well 
enough  for  a  pretext ;  but  it  was  not  the  cause  of  his  persecu- 
tion at  this  time.  Hear  what  the  very  learned  and  orthodox 
Jerome  says  on  the  subject,  about  a  hundred  and  fifty  years 
after  Origen's  death.  Alluding  to  the  proceedings  against 
him  at  Alexandria,  he  says  that  he  was  condemned,  "  not  on 
account  of  the  novelty  of  his  dogmas ;  not  on  account  of  her- 
esy, for  which  he  is  now  barked  at  by  the  rabid  dogs ;  but 
because  they  could  not  endure  the  fame  of  his  eloquence  and 
learning."  * 

Demetrius  wrote  letters  to  the  bishops  everywhere,  loading 
Origen  with  execrations,  and  endeavoring  to  render  his  name 
a  byword  and  a  reproach  in  all  Christian  lands.  But  this  was 
more  than  he  could  accomplish.  It  is  true,  the  West,  gener- 
ally, declared  against  him,  —  even  Rome  itself;  such  was  the 
deference  shown  at  that  time  to  the  see  of  Alexandria.  But 
the  Bishops  of  Csesarea  and  Jerusalem,  as  also  those  of  Arabia, 
Phoenicia,  and  Greece,  the  old  friends  of  Origen,  still  adhered 
to  him,  despising  the  anathemas  of  the  synods  of  Egypt.  In 
these  several  provinces,  Origen  was  still  allowed  to  discharge 
the  functions  of  priest. 

Demetrius  did  not  long  survive  to  enjoy  his  triumphs  ot 
*  Epist.  29,  ad  Paulam. 


164  ORIGEN,    AND    HH    THEOLOGY. 

mourn  over  his  defeat.  He  died  soon  after  Origen  had  bidden 
adieu  to  Alexandria,  and  Avas  succeeded  in  the  bishopric  by 
Heraclas,  who  was  promoted  to  that  office,  as  Eusebius  tells 
us,*  on  account  of  his  deep  knowledge  of  Pagan  literature  and 
philosophy ;  a  circumstance  which  shows  the  esteem  in  which 
secular  learning  was  then  held  by  the  Alexandrian  Christians. 
Heraclas,  we  have  said,  was  the  pupil  and  friend  of  Origen  ; 
and  he  had  succeeded  him,  before  he  was  made  bishop,  in  the 
Catechetical  School.  But,  notwithstanding  his  regard  for  his 
old  preceptor,  —  now  the  most  celebrated  man  of  the  age,  — 
the  sentence  of  excommunication  pronounced  against  him  by 
the  synod  was  not  revoked  during  his  life ;  nor  by  his  suc- 
cessor, Dionysius,  also  one  of  Origan's  scholars ;  and  Origen 
was  ever,  therefore,  regarded  by  the  Egyptians  as  an  excom- 
municated person. 

The  reasons  for  his  excommunication,  and  the  sole  reasons, 
are  given  above.  He  was  charged  with  no  immorality.  The 
story,  set  afloat  some  time  after,  that  he  had  consented  in  an 
evil  hour  to  offer  incense  to  idols,  and  that  the  contempt  and 
ridicule  which  this  act  of  wickedness  brought  on  him  com- 
pelled him  to  leave  Egypt,  is  entitled  to  no  credit.  It  is 
related  by  Epiphanius,  a  very  credulous  writer  of  the  fourth 
century ;  and  seems  to  have  been  invented  by  the  enemies  of 
Origen,  some  years  after  his  death.  The  story  is  in  itself,  and 
in  the  several  circumstances  which  attend  it,  highly  improb- 
able ;  it  is  alluded  to  by  none  of  the  more  ancient  writers, 
even  those  most  hostile  to  the  fame  of  Origen,  and  is  utterly 
at  variance  with  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  other 
writers  entitled  to  most  respect.  There  is  a  better  anecdote 
related  of  him  by  Epiphanius.  At  a  certain  time,  the  Pagans 
seized  him,  and,  dressing  him  up  in  the  robes  of  a  priest  of 
Serapis,  conducted  him  to  the  steps  of  the  temple.  They  then 
piit  palm-leaves  into  his  hands,  commanding  him  to  present 
them  to  those  who  entered.  He  accepted  the  ofterings ;  but 
on  presenting  them  boldly  said,  "Accept  not  the  idol's  palm, 
but  the  palm  of  Christ."  f 

*  Euseb.  Hist.,  vi.  31.  t  Epiphan.  Haer.,  Ixiv.  1. 


RETIRES   TO    PALESTINK  —  NEW   PUPILS.  165 


CHAPTER    III. 

Okigen  retires  to  Palestine.  —  New  Pupils.  —  His  Critical  and 
Theological  Studies.  —  Imprisoned,  and  put  to  the  Rack. — Dies 
at  Tyre.  —  His  Genius  and  Character.  —  Question  of  his  Salta- 
tion.—  Merits  and  Defects  as  a  Writer,  Critic,  and  Expositor. 

Origen  left  Egypt  soon  after  the  year  230,  when  a  Httle 
more  than  forty-five  years  of  age.  He  retired  to  Csesarea  in 
Palestine,  where  he  continued  to  preach  with  the  approbation 
of  the  bishops  of  the  province.  Here,  as  in  Egypt,  a  crowd 
of  young  men  gathered  around  him,  who,  warmed  by  his 
enthusiasm  and  instructed  by  his  learning,  afterwards  became 
eminent  teachers  in  the  church.  Among  them  were  Gregory, 
called  Thaumaturgus,  the  Wonder-worker,  and  his  brother, 
Athenodorus.  They  are  described  by  Eusebius  as  having 
been  passionately  fond  of  the  Roman  and  Greek  learning. 
The  former  was  engaged  in  the  study  of  the  Roman  law,  at 
Csesarea,  where  he  became  acquainted  with  Origen ;  by  whose 
winning  eloquence  he  was  induced  to  abandon  it,  and  transfer 
his  affections  to  divinity.  He  was  accompanied  by  his  brother. 
They  remained  five  years  with  Origen ;  and  afterwards  be- 
came, while  yet  young,  bishops  in  Pontus,  their  native  coun- 
try.* Thus  was  Origen's  expulsion  from  Egypt  the  means  of 
exalting  his  fame  and  extending  the  sphere  of  his  usefulness. 

*  Thaumaturgus  has  left  sufficient  testimony  of  his  veneration  and  love  of 
Origen,  in  a  "  Panegyrical  Oration  "  which  he  delivered  on  his  departure  ;  a 
somewhat  extravagant  and  inflated  performance,  but  interesting  from  the  sub- 
ject, and  the  occasion  on  which  it  was  delivered.  It  was  pronounced,  it 
seems,  in  the  presence  of  Origen,  and  is  a  lofty  encomium  on  his  merits ; 
written,  however,  with  warmth,  and  apparently  with  great  sincerity  of  feel- 
ing. The  circumstances  which  led  to  the  first  interview  of  his  pupils  with 
him,  his  efforts  to  detain  them,  his  bland  and  insinuating  eloquence,  his  ani- 
mated description  of  the  nature  and  end  of  true  philosophy,  his  praises  of  it, 
his  benignant  temper,  his  urbanity  and  modesty,  by  all  which  their  admira- 
tion was  awakened  and  their  affections  won ;  their  resolution  to  abandon  their 
former  studies,  and  remain  with  this  fascinating  man ;  the  method  he  pursued 


166  OBIGEN,    AND   HIS  THEOLOGY. 

Origen  now  pursued  his  design  of  writing  commentaries, 
being  engaged,  as  Eusebius  tells  us,  on  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel. 
The  latter  were  finished  some  time  after  at  Athens.  He  had 
previously,  as  we  have  seen,  while  at  Alexandria,  written  his 
book  "  De  Principiis  ";  to  which  we  may  add  his  "  Stromata," 
in  imitation  of  Clement ;  and  parts  of  his  expositions  on  Gen- 
esis and  on  the  Gospel  of  John.* 

During  the  persecution  under  Maximin,  a.  d.  235,  he  ap- 
pears to  have  consulted  his  safety  by  withdrawing  himself  from 
Palestine.  It  was  at  this  time,  probably,  that  he  accepted  the 
invitation  of  Firmilian,  Bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  to 
visit  that  place.  He  remained  there  some  time,  employed  on 
his  "  Hexapla."  For  two  years  he  was  concealed  in  the  house 
of  a  wealthy  lady  by  the  name  of  Juliana ;  from  whom  he 
received  some  manuscripts  very  important  to  him  in  his  criti- 
cal labors,  undertaken,  as  before  said,  for  the  emendation  of 
the  Alexandrian  version  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  had  pre- 
viously discovered  in  an  old  cask  or  wine-bag,  at  Jericho,  an 
ancient  translation  not  before  known  to  exist.  From  Juliana 
he  obtained  that  of  the  Ebionite  Symmachus,  to  whose  writ- 
ings she  had  become  heiress. 

Thus  enriched,  he  returned  to  Palestine  in  238.  He  makes 
a  second  journey  into  Greece  ;  during  which  he  continues  his 
theological  labors.  We  afterwards  find  him  in  Bostra  in 
Arabia ;  whither  he  was  summoned  to  hold  a  conference  with 
Beryllus,  Bishop  of  Bostra,  who  denied  the  preexistence  of 
Christ.f  He  made  a  third  journey  into  Arabia  some  time 
after,  being  called  to  refute  the  opinions  of  some  Arabian 
Christians,  who  maintained  that  the  soul  dies,  and  is  raised 
again  with  the  body.  J 

with  them ;  his  mode  of  instruction  in  philosophy,  ethics,  and  theology  ;  his 
profound  wisdom  and  piety ;  and  their  regret  on  leaving  him,  —  are  among 
the  topics  introduced.  The  expulsion  of  Adam  from  paradise,  and  the  misery 
endured  by  the  Jews  in  Babylon,  are  among  the  extravagant  similes  em- 
ployed to  express  their  sense  of  the  loss  they  should  sustain  on  being  deprived 
of  his  counsels  and  presence.  The  piece  is  disfigured  by  all  the  faults  of  the 
Asiatic  style  ;  but  as  a  panegyric  on  Origen  by  one  of  his  most  ardent  ad- 
mirers, and  one  who  had  opportunity  of  thoroughly  knowing  him,  it  becomes 
in  object  of  curiosity. 

*  P^useb.  HisL,  vi.  24,  25. 

t  Jerome,  De  Vir.  Illust.,  art.  "  Beryllus."  {  Euseb.  Hist.,  vi.  37. 


HIS   DRATTT.  167 

Thus,  if  a  cloud  hung  over  his  fame  in  Egypt  and  the  West, 
he  had  the  consolation  of  knowing;  that  he  was  still  regarded 
with  unbounded  admiration  in  the  East. 

Origen  returned  to  Palestine.  He  was  now,  according  to 
Eusebius,  more  than  sixty  years  of  age,  yet  did  not  relax  the 
industry  which,  through  life,  formed  one  of  the  most  promi- 
nent features  of  his  character.  His  powers  were  yet  in  their 
full  vigor  ;  and  among  the  works  produced  after  this  period 
were  some  of  his  best.  His  celebrated  work  against  Celsus, 
undertaken  at  the  request  of  Ambrose,  was  one  of  the  num- 
ber. He  continued  also  to  write  commentaries.  The  subjects 
on  which  he  was  now  employed  were  Matthew's  Gospel  and 
the  twelve  Minor  Prophets. 

Having  from  long  use  acquired  the  habit  of  speaking  extem- 
pore with  great  accuracy,  he  now,  for  the  first  time,  permitted 
the  discourses  delivered  by  him  in  public  to  be  taken  down, 
and  published  by  reporters  and  copyists.  These  homilies  were 
delivered  almost  every  day ;  and  the  number  thus  preserved 
and  transmitted  to  posterity  as  a  monument  of  his  diligence, 
amounted,  we  are  told,  to  more  than  a  thousand.* 

Origen  was  not  allowed  to  finish  his  days  in  peace.  The 
persecution  under  Decius  had  commenced ;  during  which, 
Alexander,  the  aged  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  (Origen's  firm  and 
tried  friend,)  perished  in  prison.  Origen  himself  was  confined 
in  chains  in  the  inmost  recesses  of  a  prison,  and  subjected  to 
exquisite  torture  by  the  rack ;  the  most  consummate  skill 
being  exerted  to  push  his  sufferings  to  the  utmost  point'  of 
endurance,  without  causing  his  death,  f  He  bore  all,  how- 
ever, with  immovable  constancy,  though  now  sixty-five  years 
of  age  ;  and  the  death  of  Decius,  as  may  be  conjectured, 
finally  procured  his  release.  Worn  out  with  years,  toil,  and 
sufferings,  he  sunk  quietly  to  rest  at  Tyre,  at  the  age,  says 
Eusebius,  of  sixty -nine  years  J  (a.  d.  254).  His  remains 
were  deposited,  as  tradition  says,  in  the  Cathedral  Church  of 
the  Holy  Sepulchre  at  Tyre,  near  the  great  altar.     A  marble 

*  Euseb.  Hist.,  vi.  36 ;  Pamph.  Apol.  pro  Orig.;  Jerome,  Epist.  41,  al.  65,  ad 
Pammach. 
t  Euseb.  Hist.,  vi.  39. 
J  Hist.,  vii.  1.     See  also  Jerome,  De  Vir.  Illust.,  c.  64. 


168  OEIGEN,    AND    HIS   THEOLOGY. 

column,  bearing  his  name  and  epitaph,  and  adorned  with  gold 
and  gems,  was  visible,  it  is  said,  so  late  as  near  the  end  of  the 
thirteenth  century  ;  but  all  vestiges  of  the  tomb  have  long 
since  disappeared.* 

Ambrose,  his  distinguished  patron  and  admirer,  died  before 
him,  and  was  censured,  says  Jerome,  because,  though  rich,  he 
bequeathed  nothing  to  his  friend,  who  was  then  poor  and  old. 
The  censure  may  have  been  unjust.  Origen,  as  we  have  seen, 
in  early  life  remained  in  a  state  of  voluntary  poverty,  and 
persevered  in  resisting  the  earnest  entreaties  of  his  friends  to 
partake  of  the  gifts  of  their  liberality.  He  probably  retained 
in  age  the  feelings  and  views  by  which  he  was  influenced  in 
youth ;  and  Ambrose,  tliei'efore,  forbore  to  offer  what  he  knew 
his  friend  would  refuse  to  accept. 

Tlie  foreffoincr  narrative  embodies  all  that  is  known  of  the 
personal  history  of  Origen  Adamantius.  Of  the  chronologi- 
cal order  of  several  of  the  incidents  related,  there  exists  some 
uncertainty.  Eusebius,  from  whom  the  greater  part  of  the 
materials  for  a  life  of  Origen  must  be  drawn,  is  very  sparing 
of  dates;  and  his  narrative,  though  on  some  points  copious, 
is  not  a  little  confused.  Jerome,  in  the  very  brief  account 
of  this  Father  inserted  in  his  "  Catalogue  of  Ecclesiastical 
Writers,"  has  preserved  a  few  dates ;  but,  in  the  order  of  his 
narration,  he  often  differs  from  Eusebius. 

Of  Origen's  genius  and  character  we  shall  not  attempt  any 
labored  analysis.  The  prominent  features  of  both  are  well 
known,  and  several  of  them  have  been  incidentally  noticed 
in  the  above  sketch  of  his  life.  That  he  had  qualities  fitted 
to  inspire  admiration  and  love,  can  be  doubted  by  none.  His 
merits  won  him  many  distinguished  and  warm  friends  ;  and  it 
should  be  mentioned  as  equally  to  their  credit  and  to  his,  that 
many  of  them  remained  true  to  him  in  the  hour  of  his  greatest 
adversity.  He  was  regarded  by  multitudes  with  extravagant 
fondness ;  yet,  amid  the  marks  of  flattering  attention  which  he 
was  daily  receiving,  he  appears  to  have  retained,  in  a  remark- 
able degree,  his  natural  simplicity  and  modesty.     He  was  pur- 

*  Huet.  Orig.,  lib.  i.  c.  4,  §  9,  note.  Maundrell  found  remains  of  a  church, 
supposed  to  be  the  catliedral,  in  1697;  but,  according  to  a  more  recent  trav- 
eller, they  are  no  longer  to  be  seen. 


QUESTION    OP    HIS    SALVATION.  169 

sued  in  his  lifetime,  as  was  his  memory  after  his  death,  by 
envy  and  hate  ;  he  was  abused,  anathematized,  and  driven 
from  his  country ;  but  seems  to  have  contracted  no  bitterness 
or  misanthropy  of  feeling.  If  it  be  the  lot  of  few  to  experience 
to  an  equal  extent  the  extremes  of  adulation  and  censure,  few 
will  be  found  to  exhibit  brighter  examples  of  moderation  and 
self-command.  Of  the  amenity  of  his  disposition,  his  bland- 
ness,  and  winning  address,  his  history  and  writings  afford 
abundant  evidence. 

His  piety  cannot  be  questioned,  though  he  has  never  been 
allowed  to  bear  the  title  of  saint  in  the  Roman  calendar,  and 
the  question  has  been  seriously  debated,  whether  he  won 
heaven  by  his  merits,  or  was  doomed  to  the  penal  fires  of 
hell    for   his   errors !  *     Such   is   human   folly   and  absurdity. 

*  "  There  are  many  divines  in  the  communion  of  Rome,"  says  Bayle, 
"  who  believe  this  Father  is  in  hell."  And  the  skeptical  writer  proceeds  to 
amuse  himself  and  his  readers  with  several  curious  extracts  and  references. 
One  is  from  Dallasus's  reply  to  M.  Cottibi,  whom  he  convicted  of  isjnorance 
of  Christian  antiquity  in  applying  the  title  of  saint  to  Origen,  which  he  never 
bore.  We  will  give  a  short  specimen  :  "  It  is  scarce  two  hundred  years  since 
Johannes  Picus  Mirandulanus,  having  published  at  Rome,  among  his  nine 
hundred  propositions,  that  it  was  more  reasonable  to  believe  Origen's  salva- 
tion than  his  damnation,  was  thereupon  taken  up  by  the  doctors  in  divinity, 
who  affirmed  that  this  conclusion  is  rash  and  blameworthy." 

"  The  Jesuit  Stephen  Binet,"  says  the  same  writer,  "  publishing  a  book  at 
Paris,  in  1629,  concerning  the  salvation  of  Origen,  durst  not  take  the  affirma- 
tive without  trembling.  He  lays  out  the  matter  in  the  form  of  an  indictment 
and  trial,  and  produces  the  witnesses  and  pleaders  pro  and  con,  with  tlie  inter- 
vention of  the  conclusion  of  the  King  of  heaven's  council.  At  last  he  brings 
in  this  verdict :  '  Considering  all  that  has  been  said  on  one  side  and  the  other, 
and  the  conclusions  of  the  King  of  heaven's  council,  it  is  decreed,  that  the 
affair  be  left  to  God's  secret  counsel,  to  whom  the  definitive  sentence  is  reserved. 
Nevertheless,  by  provision,  and  for  the  benefit  of  Origen,  it  is  judged,  upon 
the  balance  of  the  whole,  that  the  proofs  of  his  salvation  are  stronger  and 
more  conclusive  than  that  of  his  damnation.'  This,  we  suppose,  may  be  con- 
sidered as,  on  the  whole,  a  very  judicious  verdict.  We  will  next  give  a  short 
extract  from  the  arguments  of  the  council  for  and  against  Origen.  The  fol- 
lowing passage,  taken  from  the  vision  of  a  '  good  and  honest '  abbot  in  the 
Pratiim  Spirituale,  a  book  cited  with  apparent  approbation  by  a  general  coun- 
cil, occurs  in  the  argument  of  the  council  against  him  :  'A  good  man,  under 
great  concern  about  the  salvation  of  Origen's  soul,  did,  after  the  ardent  prayer 
of  a  holy  old  man,  plainly  see  a  sort  of  hell  laid  open  to  him,  where  he  dis- 
tinguished and  knew  the  heresiarchs,  who  were  all  called  over  before  him  by 
Aeir  names ;  and  in  the  midst  of  them  he  saw  Origen,  who  lay  there  damned 
among  the  rest,  and  covered  with  horror,  flames,  and  confusion ! '  To  this 
the  council  on  the  part  of  Origen  reply,  '  Here  the  vision  of  a  simple  abbot  is 


170  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS   THEOLOGY. 

He  led  a  life  of  uncommon  sanctity  and  abstemiousness, 
treading  under  foot  the  wealth  and  pleasures  of  earth,  and 
leaving  monuments  of  zeal,  diligence,  and  constancy,  which 
will  endure  while  the  religion  he  labored  to  defend  and  illus- 
trate has  an  abode  in  the  world. 

His  intellectual  character  is  strongly  marked.  He  seemed 
formed  to  exemplify  the  greatness  and  imbecility  of  human 
nature.  As  a  writer,  his  merits  and  defects  are  alike  con- 
spicuous. He  had  a  quick  and  comprehensive  understanding, 
subtilty,  and  penetration  ;  a  memory  uncommonly  tenacious, 
a  rapid  and  teeming  imagination,  and  a  fervid  and  enthusiastic 
temperament.  But  he  was  wanting  in  sound  judgment,  in 
accuracy  and  method.  He  threw  off  his  compositions  in  haste, 
or  rather  dictated  them  extempore  to  his  numerous  scribes, 
whom  he  fatigued  by  his  celerity  and  protracted  labors  day 
and  night ;  and  what  was  once  committed  to  writing  seems 
never  to  have  been  subjected  to  revision.  Prohxity  and  ver- 
boseness,  diffuseness  and  redundancy,  in  matter  and  style, 
were  the  inevitable  consequence.  These  defects  run  through 
all  his  writings,  but  characterize  particularly  his  commentaries. 
Hence  one  of  his  enemies,  after  his  death,  took  occasion  to 
say,  that  he  left  the  world  the  "  heritage  of  his  garrulity  as  a 
pestiferous  possession."  * 

As  a  critic  and  expositor,  he  is  not  entitled  to  any  profound 
respect.  His  fondness  for  allegory  and  mysticism  amounted 
to  a  sort  of  frenzy.  His  learning  was  vast,  but  he  had  too 
little  discrimination  in  the  use  of  it ;  and  his  attachment  to 
the  idealistic  philosophy  (to  use  Neander's  word),  then  preva- 
lent in  Egypt,  was  the  means  of  vitiating  all  his  views  of 
theology.  Under  the  name  of  Christianity,  he  retailed  most 
of  the  reveries  and  extravagances  of  the  Alexandrian  Pla- 
tonists  of  the  school  of  Potamon  and  Ammonius. 

With  all  his  defects,  however,  we  cannot  withhold  from  him 
a  title  to  the  praise  of  extraordinary  genius.     He  Avas  among 

alleged :  and  I  allege  the  vision  of  a  great  saint  called  Mechtildis,  to  whom 
God  revealed  that  he  would  not  have  the  world  to  know  what  was  become  of 
Samson,  Solomon,  and  Origen ;  with  the  intent  to  strike  the  greatest  terror 
\nto  the  strongest,  the  wisest,  and  the  most  learned  men  of  this  world,  by 
keeping  them  in  suspense  and  uncertainty.' "  Poor  Origen  ! 
*  Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  Lib.  Pasch.  1. 


HIS    INTELLECTUAL    CHAKACTER.  171 

the  great  men  of  his  age,  and  would  have  been  great  in  any 
age.  The  germ  of  most  of  his  errors,  as  we  have  intimated, 
existed  in  the  prevalent  modes  of  thinking,  and  they  are  such 
as  a  person  placed  in  his  circumstances,  and  possessing  a  bold, 
ardent,  and  speculative  mind,  united  with  precipitancy  of 
judgment,  but  with  great  goodness  of  heart,  —  the  religious 
element,  too,  strong  in  his  nature,  —  might  very  naturally 
adopt.  Yet,  with  all  his  extravagances,  (and  they  were  great 
enough,)  there  was  that  in  him  which  wins  our  love  and 
reverence ;  and  his  pages  may  still  both  delight  and  instruct. 
"  I  acquire  more  knowledge  of  Christian  philosophy,"  says 
Erasmus,  "  from  one  page  of  Origen,  than  from  ten  of 
Augustine." 


172  OBIGEN,   AND   HIS  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Wbitings  of  Origen.  —  Commentaries. — Principles  of  iNTERrREXA 
TiON.  —  His  Book  "Of  Principles."  —  His  "Hexapla."  —  His  Work 

AGAINST    CeLSDS. 

Of  several  of  Origen's  writings  only  the  title  remains ; 
and  of  many,  even  that  seems  to  have  perished.  Eusebius 
informs  us  *  that  he  had  inserted  a  catalogue  of  his  works  in 
the  "  Life  of  Pamphilus,"  which  is  now  lost ;  and  Jerome,  as 
we  learn  from  himself,  gave  one  in  a  letter  to  Paula,  of  which 
only  a  fragment  has  been  preserved.  Ancient  writers  speak 
of  the  number  of  volumes  produced  by  him  as  vast  and  almost 
infinite.  Rufinus  and  others  make  it  amount  to  six  thousand ; 
but  Jerome  asserts,!  that  he  did  not  find  in  Eusebius's  cata- 
logue one  third  part  of  that  number.  At  the  same  time,  he 
bears  ample  testimony  to  the  immense  bulk  of  his  writings. 
"All  Greek  and  Roman  authors,"  he  tells  us,  "were  surpassed 
by  the  labors  of  this  one."  —  "Who,"  he  asks,  "  can  read  so 
much  as  he  wrote  ?  "  J 

His  exegetical  writings  were  of  three  kinds.  The  first  were 
called  Scholia,  and  consisted  of  brief  notes  intended  to  illus- 

*  Hist.,  vi.  32.  t  Apol.  adv.  Rujin.,  lib.  ii. 

t  Epist.  29,  ad  Paulam.  The  account  which  supposes  him  to  have  written 
six  thousand  volumes,  seems,  at  first  view,  extravagant.  That  he  might  have 
produced  that  number,  however,  appears  by  no  means  impossible,  when  we 
consider  that  each  of  the  homilies  or  discourses  —  which  were,  in  some  sort, 
extempore  performances,  and  of  which  a  thousand  were  given  to  the  public  by 
him  after  he  was  sixty  years  of  age  —  seems  to  have  been  enumerated  as  a 
volume;  and  that  his  commentaries,  which  are  said  by  Epiphanius  to  have 
extended  to  all  the  books  of  Scripture,  —  and  which,  as  we  know  from  the 
remains  of  them  now  extant,  were  uncommonly  diffuse,  —  were  divided  into 
very  small  tomes.  That  these  tomes  were  exceedingly  numerous  is  sufii- 
ciently  evident  from  the  fact,  that  the  first  thirteen  embraced  only  the  three 
first  and  part  of  the  fourth  chapters  of  Genesis.  By  this  metliod  of  distribu- 
tion, it  is  obvious  that  the  works  of  Origen  would  amount  to  a  prodigious 
number  of  volumes,  —  possibly  even  to  six  thousand.  Had  he  written  less, 
bis  productions  would  have  acquired  in  value  what  they  lost  in  bulk. 


HIS   COMMENTARIES.  173 

trate  the  more  difficult  passages.  The  second,  denominated 
Tomes,  or  Commentaries,  were  diffuse  expositions  of  the  sev- 
eral books  of  the  Bible  ;  in  these,  Origen  indulged  in  full 
extent  his  fondness  for  recondite  and  mystical  meanings.  The 
third  class  consisted  of  Homilies,  delivered  by  him,  chiefly  at 
Csesarea,  late  in  life  ;  in  which  he  explained  select  portions  of 
the  sacred  writings  in  a  style  adapted  to  the  popular  ear. 

His  Commentaries  exhibit  little  accuracy.  Indeed,  the  prin- 
ciple on  which  he  proceeded  precluded  a  sound  and  rational 
exposition  of  the  language  of  his  author.  The  greater  part 
of  Scripture  contains,  according  to  him,  three  senses  :  the  lit- 
eral or  historical,  or,  as  he  frequently  calls  it,  the  sensuous ; 
then  the  allegorical,  that  is,  moi^al  or  mystical ;  and,  highest 
of  all,  the  spiritual,  sometimes  confounded  with  the  mystical ; 
the  three  corresponding  to  body,  soul,  and  spirit  in  man.  Of 
the  first  he  had  but  a  very  mean  opinion.  Going  on  this  princi- 
ple, it  is  not  surprising  that  he  became  not  a  little  visionary  and 
wild.  In  fact,  he  mystifies  and  allegorizes  almost  everything. 
Jerome  accuses  him  of  allegorizing  paradise  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  destroy  tlie  faith  of  history,  —  by  trees,  understanding 
angels ;  and  by  rivers,  celestial  powers.*  Again  :  by  the  gar- 
ments of  skins  with  which  God  is  said  (Gen.  iii.  21)  to  have 
clothed  Adam  and  Eve,  he  supposed  were  meant  bodies,  with 
which  they  became  clothed  after  the  fall ;  they  having  previ- 
ously existed  in  paradise  without  flesh  and  bones. f  It  should 
be  observed,  however,  that  Origen,  in  his  commentary  on  the 
passage  referred  to,  (which  is  preserved,)  does  not  state  this 
opinion  as  an  undisputed  dogma.  He  mentions  a  difficulty 
attending  it ;  still  he  seems  inclined  to  receive  it.^  By  the 
waters  which  are  said  to  be  above  the  firmament,  we  are  to 
understand,  according  to  him,  the  holy  and  supernal  powers ; 
and  by  those  over  and  under  the  earth,  the  opposite  and  de- 
moniacal. §  To  such  an  extent  did  he  indulge  his  fondness 
for  allegorical  and  tropological  senses.  || 

*  Epist.  38,  al.  61,  ad  Pammach.  t  Epist.  38,  al.  61,  ad  Pammach. 

X  0pp.,  t.  ii.  p.  29.  §  Jerome,  Ad  Pammach. 

II  Generally  speaking,  Origen  thought  the  literal  sense  of  Suripture  to  be 
sufficient  for  the  unlearned ;  at  least,  all  they  were  capable  of  receiving.  But 
-he  letter  often  contains  what  is  false,  absurd,  repugnant  to  itself,  impossible. 


174  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS   THEOLOGY. 

Several  of  tlie  Homilies,  and  large  fragments  of  the  Tomes, 
or  Commentaries,  have  been  transmitted  to  us,  constituting 
together  nearly  three  fourths  of  all  the  works  of  Origen  which 
are  extant.  Of  a  part,  we  possess  the  original  Greek ;  of  other 
parts,  only  the  Latin  translations  of  Rufinus,  Jerome,  and 
others.  Those  by  Jerome  are  entitled  to  much  respect ;  and 
those  by  Rufinus,  for  reasons  stated  below,  to  very  little. 

Of  the  other  works  of  Origen,  one  of  the  most  considerable 
is  the  four  books  "  Of  Principles,"  written  before  he  left 
Egypt.  The  original  of  the  work,  fragments  excepted,  is  lost. 
It  was  translated  into  Latin,  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century, 
by  Rufinus ;  who,  under  the  absurd  pretext  that  it  had  been 

etc. ;  whence  an  infinity  of  errors  have  sprung.  The  mystical  or  allegorical 
sense  is  necessary  to  defend  the  truth  of  Scripture  against  its  adversaries,  and 
make  it  appear  worthy  of  God.  It  is  difficult,  not  to  say  impossible,  to  pene- 
trate the  mystical  senses  of  Scripture  ;  yet  there  are  certain  rules,  the  observ- 
ance of  which  will  conduce  to  a  knowledge  of  them.  And,  first,  whatever  is 
said  relating  to  the  ceremonial  law  is  always  to  be  understood,  not  literally, 
but  mystically.  Again  :  whatever  is  said  of  Jerusalem,  Egypt,  Babylon, 
Tyre,  and  other  places  on  earth,  is  to  be  referred  wholly  to  corresponding 
spiritual  localities,  where  souls  have  a  habitation ;  for  in  heaven  is  a  region 
corresponding  to  Judsa,  a  city  corresponding  to  Jerusalem,  a  people  cor- 
responding to  the  Jewish  people.  There  is  a  spiritual  Egypt,  a  spiritual 
Babylon,  a  spiritual  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  other  cities  and  places  of  this  sort, 
corresponding  to  cities  and  regions  of  the  same  name  on  earth.  Finally,  the 
mystical  sense  must  be  resorted  to,  and  the  letter  deserted,  whenever  the  latter 
appears  false,  uncdifying,  or  unworthy  of  God.  This  summary  is  mostly 
taken  from  Origen's  work  on  "  Principles."  Origen  appears  not  to  have  dis- 
tinguished between  the  literal  and  metaphorical  sense ;  between  what  was 
meant  to  be  understood  strictly,  according  to  the  natural  signification  of  the 
words,  and  what  the  views  and  purpose  of  the  writer,  the  connection  of  the 
discourse,  and  other  considerations  to  be  taken  into  view  by  the  laws  of  ap- 
proved criticism,  require  us  to  understand  in  a  modified  or  restricted  sense. 
lie  therefore  often  resorts  to  mystical  or  spiritual  senses,  when  the  supposition 
of  a  popular  or  figurative  use  of  language  would  have  answered  his  purpose 
quite  as  well.  For  example  :  commenting  on  Gen.  iii.  21,  in  which  it  is  said, 
"Unto  Adam  also  and  to  his  wife  did  the  Lord  God  make  coats  of  skins,  and 
clothed  them,"  he  says  that  it  would  be  foolish,  and  unworthy  of  God,  to  sup- 
pose that  he  took  the  skins  of  animals  slain,  or  which  had  otherwise  perished, 
and,  by  sewing  them  together,  reduced  them  to  the  form  of  a  coat.  He  there- 
fore resorts  to  a  mystical  sense.  Now  the  foundation  of  his  error,  it  is  obvi- 
ous, lay  in  the  supposition,  that  it  is  necessary  either  to  take  the  words  of 
Moses  in  their  most  literal  acceptation,  or  to  assign  to  them  an  allegorical  or 
mystical  sense  ;  that  there  was  no  medium  between  the  two.  See  Delarue's 
Preface  to  Origen's  Commentaries.  Also  Neander,  Hist.  Christ.  Religion  and 
Church,  vol.  i.  pp.  555,  556,  Torrey's  translation. 


HIS    "  HEXAPLA."  175 

corrupted  by  the  Arians,  took  the  hberty  of  altering  what  did 
not  please  him.  For  this  he  was  severely  censured  by  Jerome, 
whom  he  had  offended  by  some  sinister  praises  bestowed  on 
him  in  the  preface,  and  which  were  designed  to  draw  upon 
him  the  suspicion  of  Origenism.  Rufinus  admits  that  he  had 
changed,  expunged,  and  modified  certain  passages,  which  would 
not  have  been  tolerated  by  Latin  ears ;  but  asserts  that  he  had 
substituted  others,  taken  from  the  acknowledged  writings  of 
Origen.  This  Jerome  denies,  and  Rufinus  fails  of  proving ; 
and  much  intemperate  language  passed  between  them.  The 
result  was,  that  Jerome  gave  a  new,  and,  as  he  affirms,  a  faith- 
ful translation  of  the  work  in  question.  But  this,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  small  fragments,  has  been  suffered  to  per- 
ish ;  and,  for  our  knowledge  of  the  work,  we  are  indebted 
almost  solely  to  the  corrupt  version  of  Rufinus.  The  loss 
of  the  original  is  the  more  to  be  regretted,  as  this  was  one  of 
Origen's  most  elaborate  performances,  and  contained  a  full 
exposition  of  his  views  respecting  the  nature  of  the  Saviour.* 
The  work,  in  its  present  form,  can  afford  us  little  help  in 
settling  the  question  of  the  opinion  of  Origen  on  the  subject 
of  the  Trinity.  It  was  on  this  point  that  Rufinus  undertook 
to  correct  it.  On  others,  as  Jerome  informs  us,  he  left  Origen 
to  speak  his  own  sentiments. 

Origen's  great  work  was  the  "  Hexapla."  f     Of  this  work 

*  Rufin.  Invect. ;  Jerome,  Apol.  adv.  Rujin. 

t  The  design  of  the  Hexapla  was  to  correct  the  text  of  the  Greek  version 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  then  in  common  use,  but  was  found  to  con- 
tain many  false  readings,  which  occasioned  some  embarrassment  in  the  contro- 
versies between  the  Christians  and  the  Jews,  who  often  appealed  to  the  He- 
brew original  as  differing  from  the  version  of  the  Seventy.  For  this  purpose, 
Origen  collected  all  the  versions  of  the  Old  Testament  within  his  reach,  which 
he  transcribed  and  arranged  in  parallel  columns.  First  stood  the  Hebrew 
text ;  then  the  same  in  Greek  characters.  This  was  followed  by  the  very  lit- 
eral version  of  the  Jew  Aquila,  then  recently  published.  The  next  column 
was  occupied  by  the  more  free,  but,  as  it  is  said,  faithful  translation  of  Sym- 
machus,  an  Ebionite.  Then  followed  the  version  of  the  Seventy,  corrected 
by  a  comparison  of  it  with  the  Hebrew  text.  After  this  stood  the  Greek  ver- 
sion of  Theodotion,  also  an  Ebionite.  To  these  he  added  two  obscure  anony- 
mous versions  then  recently  brought  to  light ;  and,  on  the  Psalms,  still 
another,  making  the  seventh.  The  work  was  called  Biblia  Hexapla,  either 
because  it  contained  six  versions,  —  the  fragment  on  the  Psalms  not  being 
taken  into  account,  —  or  because  it  was  originally  composed  of  six  columns  : 
the  Hebrew  text,  and  the  same  in  Greek  characters,  forming  two ;  and  the 


176  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS    THEOLOGY. 

only  a  few  fragments  have  come  down  to  us.  The  original, 
which  never  seems  to  have  been  copied  entire,  was  deposited 
in  the  libraxy  of  Ca3sarea  by  Pamphilus,  its  founder.  The 
library  was  destroyed  during  the  eruption  of  the  Saracens ; 
and  this  monument  of  noble  industry  was  thus  lost  to  the 
world.  The  parts  containing  the  corrected  version  of  the 
Septuagint  had  been  transcribed  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus, 
with  occasional  extracts  from  other  versions ;  but  only  frag- 
ments of  these  are  now  extant. 

The  eio-ht  books  "  Asainst  Celsus  "  contain  much  good  rea- 
soning,  and  many  acute  and  striking  remarks.  But  Origen 
was  trammelled  by  the  superstitions  and  errors  of  the  age. 
A  belief  of  the  power  of  magic,  and  force  of  names  and  in- 
cantations, was  common,  as  well  among  Christians  as  Pagans ; 
and  appeared  sensibly  to  impair  the  evidence  of  Christianity 
from  miracles.  To  this  belief,  Origen  was  not  superior. 
"  Magic,"  he  says,  "  is  not,  as  the  disciples  of  Epicurus  and 
Aristotle  maintain,  a  futile  thing,  but  certain  and  constant," 
and  belongs  to  a  recondite  theology. 

Many  of  Celsus's  objections,  too,  were  levelled,  as  have  been 
those  of  unbelievers  since  his  time,  not  against  Christianity 
itself,  but  against  its  corruptions,  which  even  then  abounded  ; 
and  to  these  objections  Origen,  of  course,  could  furnish  no 
satisfactory  reply. 

Again  :  sevei'al  of  the  narrations  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament were  treated  by  Celsus  with  levity  and  ridicule ;  and 
Origen  thought  to  blunt  the  point  of  his  weapons  by  inter- 
posing the  shield  of  allegory  and  mysticism ;  and  no  doubt  his 
esteem  for  allegory  was  increased  by  the  vain  belief,  that  it 
would  help  to  defend  Scripture  against  profane  cavil.  But 
this  was  to  yield  the  victory  to  the  enemy.     Minds  formed 

translations  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  the  Seventy,  and  Theodotion,  making  up 
the  remaining  four.  Tiie  two  anonymous  versions  being  afterwards  added,  it 
obtained  tlie  name  of  tlie  Octapla,  as  it  tlien  consisted  of  eiglit  columns;  and 
finally  of  Enncapla,  because,  witli  the  version  of  the  Psalms  last  added,  it 
exhibited  nine.  Eusebius  informs  us  that  Origen  afterwards  prepared  the 
Tetnipla,  consisting  of  the  four  principal  versions  already  enumerated.  In 
opposition,  however,  to  this  testimony,  several  modern  critics  have  contended 
that  the  wliole  formed  originally  but  one  work,  variously  denominated  accord- 
ing to  the  number  of  columns,  or  number  of  translations,  entire  or  partial, 
which  it  contained. 


HIS   WOKK   AGAINST   CELSUS.  177 

after  the  mould  of  Celsus's  were  not  to  be  convinced  by  these 
methods ;  which,  in  their  view,  only  exposed  the  weakness  of 
the  cause  they  were  meant  to  serve.*  It  should  be  recol- 
lected, however,  that  the  design  of  the  performance  was  less 
to  convince  minds  of  this  sort  than  to  confirm  weak,  and  per- 
haps faltering.  Christians.  With  all  its  defects,  however,  it 
was  a  noble  effort ;  and  is  generally  esteemed  the  best  defence 
of  Christianity  which  has  descended  to  us  from  the  early  ages. 
Celsus  was  a  man  of  superior  intellect:  learned,  acute,  witty; 
a  complete  master  of  the  art  of  ridicule.  He  appears  to  have 
been  the  first  who  wrote  a  work  intended  as  a  direct  attack  on 
Christianity.  While  the  State  was  using  the  sword  with  a 
design  to  crush  this  religion,  —  then  grown  to  be  a  formidable 
power,  —  Celsus  was  employing  against  it  all  the  weapons 
furnished  by  his  lively  and  penetrating  intellect.  He  was  the 
Voltaire  of  his  day.  His  work  consisted  of  two  books,  called 
"  The  True  Doctrine."  It  has  now  perished,  except  such  parts 
as  are  preserved  in  Origen's  "  Reply."  In  this,  Celsus's 
objections  are  minutely  stated  and  examined.  We  dismiss 
the  work  Avith  a  single  reflection  ;  which  is,  that,  on  certain 
subjects,  the  human  mind  seems  to  labor  and  move  forever  in 
a  circle.  Ideas,  which  pass  for  novelties  at  a  later  epoch,  will 
often  be  found,  upon  examination,  to  be  old  ideas  resuscitated, 
or  called  up  from  the  tomb  of  preceding  ages.     Thus,  if  we 

*  Beausobre  has  some  just  reflections  on  this  subject.  Alluding  to  a  re- 
mark of  Origen  in  his  seventh  Homily  on  Leviticus,  that  if  we  adhere  to  the 
letter,  and  adopt  the  Jewish  or  vulgar  exposition,  we  must  blush  to  think  that 
God  has  given  such  laws,  since  those  of  the  Romans  and  Athenians  were  in- 
comparably more  equitable,  he  says,  "  It  must  be  acknowledged,  that  these 
confessions  of  the  Fathers  are  verj"^  prejudicial  to  the  Old  Testament.  The 
heretics,  who  were  not  prepossessed  in  favor  of  the  Hebrew  revelation,  knew 
well  how  to  profit  by  tliem,  and  had  not  docility  enough  to  submit  their  reason 
and  their  faith  to  allegorical  expositions.  In  fact,  what  autliority,  what  evi- 
dence, can  allegories  possess,  which  necessity  alone  invents ;  which  are  only 
the  sport  of  imagination  ;  only  meteors,  formed,  so  to  speak,  of  vapors  ex- 
haled by  a  spirit  pressed  with  difficulties  ?  The  Christians  derided  the  Gen- 
tiles, when,  to  conceal  the  shame  of  their  religious  fables,  they  pretended  that 
they  were  only  veils  designed  to  envelop  natural  truths.  It  is  not,  then,  sur- 
prising, that  not  only  the  Pagans,  but  heretics,  in  turn,  laughed  at  the  ortho- 
dox, when,  to  defend  the  history  and  laws  of  Moses,  they  employed  the 
weapons  which  they  had  been  the  first  to  break  in  pieces."  —  Histoire  Critique 
de  Manich€e  et  du  Manicheisme,  t.  i.  p.  287. 

12 


178  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS    THEOLOGY, 

look  through  the  writings  of  modern  cavillers  and  objectors, 
we  find  that  they  have  originated  very  little.  They  have 
done  little  else  than  revive  and  repeat  old  objections.  Celsus 
doubtless  thought,  that,  by  wit,  argument,  and  ridicule,  he  had 
put  an  end  to  Christianity.  But  Christianity  went  on  its  way, 
feeling  no  wound,  —  went  on  conquering ;  and  so,  we  are  con- 
fident, it  will.  We  may  predict  the  future  from  the  past. 
If  the  power  or  wit  of  man  could  overthrow  it,  it  would  long 
ago  have  fallen  ;  but  it  stands,  and  will  stand  when  all  the 
puny  weapons  lifted  against  it,  with  the  hands  that  wielded 
them,  shall  be  buried  in  rubbish  and  dust. 


INFERIORITY    OP    THE   SON.  179 


CHAPTER  V. 

Inferiority  of  the   Son.  —  Hippolttus  ;  a  New  Witness.  —  Origen 

ASSERTS   THAT   THE   FATHER  AND  SON   ARE  TwO   DiSTINCT   BeINGS  J    THAT 

THE  Father  is  Greater  than  the  Son.  —  Specimens  of  his  Lan- 
guage AND  Reasoning. — Christ  is  not  an  Object  of  Supreme 
Worship,   and    not    to    be    addressed    in    Prater.  —  The    Spirit 

BELOW    THE    SoN. ETERNAL   GENERATION. ThE   MATERIAL    CrEATIOS 

Eternal.  —  The  Logos  Doctrine  and  the  Roman  Church.  —  The 
Monarchians,  Theodotus,  Artemon,  Praxeas,  Noetus,  Beryllus. — 
Efficacy  of  the  Death  of  Christ.  —  The  Atonement. 

We  have  traced  the  doctrine  of  the  distinct  nature  and  in- 
feriority of  the  Son  from  Justin  down  to  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, who  was  Origen's  master.  Before  proceeding  to  detail 
Origen's  views  on  the  subject,  we  will  pause  for  a  moment 
over  a  recently  discovered  work,  published  at  Oxford,  in  1851, 
as  a  lost  work  of  Origen ;  *  but  Avhich,  we  think,  has  been  sat- 
isfactorily proved,  by  the  erudite  Bunsen,  to  be,  not  a  produc- 
tion of  Origen,  but  of  Hippolytus,  a  Roman  presbyter,  and 
Bishop  of  Portus,  the  harbor  of  Rome,  near  Ostia.  Hippo- 
lytus lived  and  wrote  about  the  year  220.  Bunsen  makes 
him  Origen's  senior  by  twenty-five  years,  and  pronounces  him 
"one  of  the  leading  men  of  ancient  Christianity,"  —  ".one 
of  those  Christian  teachers,  governors,  and  thinkers,  who  made 
Christianity  what  it  became  as  a  social  system,  and  as  one 
of  thought  and  ethics."  He  places  him  "  among  the  series 
of  leading  men  of  the  first  seven  generations  of  Chris- 
tians." The  title  of  the  work  is,  "  A  Refutation  of  all  Here- 
sies." The  tenth  book  contains  what  Bunsen  calls  "  the 
confession  of  faith  of  Hippolytus "  ;  which  he  pronounces 
"  the  real  gem  of  his  writings,"  — "  his  sacred  legacy  to 
posterity." 

The  history  of  Hippolytus  has  been  involved  in  great  ob- 
scurity ;  and  all  is  not  yet  perfectly  clear.  Photius  makes  him 
*  The  "  Philosophumena." 


180  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS  THEOLOGY. 

a  scholar  of  Iren^eus.  He  wrote  numerous  works,  the  titles 
of  which  are  preserved  by  the  old  writers.  He  is  styled 
bishop,  and  both  Eusebius  and  Jerome  more  than  once  men- 
tion him  ;  but  neither  of  them  knew  where  he  had  his  abode 
or  see.  Some  have  assigned  him  a  residence  at  Portus  Roma- 
nus  in  Arabia,  that  is,  Adan  or  Aden  ;  others  at  the  port  of 
Rome,  where  Bunsen  places  him.  It  is  not  improbable  that 
he  might  have  resided  at  both  places  at  different  periods  of  his 
life.  He  wrote  in  Greek.  His  death  by  martyrdom  is  referred 
to  the  early  part  of  the  third  century.  In  1551,  a  statue  in 
marble  was  dug  up  in  the  vicinity  of  Rome,  representing  a 
venerable  man  seated  in  a  chair,  and  having  the  title  of  several 
of  Hipj)olytus's  works  engraved  upon  it ;  and  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  it  is  his.  Few  of  his  writings  have  been  supposed 
to  remain. 

The  fragments  we  before  possessed,  however,  showed  the 
opinions  he  entertained  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity.  He 
was  no  believer  in  a  co-equal  Three.  His  Trinity,  says  Nean- 
der,  was  "  strictly  subordinational."  He  asserted  that  "  God 
caused  the  Logos  to  proceed  fi*om  him  when  he  would  and  as 
he  wovild."  In  regard  to  the  words,  "  I  and  my  Father  are 
one,"  he  observes,  that  Christ  "  used  the  same  expression 
respecting  his  own  relation  to  the  disciples."  * 

But  he  comes  to  us  now,  since  the  discovery  of  this  work, 
as  a  new  Avitness  against  the  antiquity  of  the  modern  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  The  confession  just  referred  to,  as  given  by 
Bunsen,  clearly  exhibits  the  superiority  of  the  Father,  and  the 
dependent  and  derived  nature  of  the  Son.  The  Father,  ac- 
cording to  the  confession,  is  "  the  one  God,  the  first  and  the 
only  One,  the  Maker  and  Lord  of  all,"  who  "  had  nothing  co- 
eval with  him,  no  infinite  chaos,  no  measureless  water  or  solid 
earth,  no  thick  air  or  hot  fire  or  subtile  spirit ;  not  the  blue 
vault  of  the  great  heaven.  But  he  was  One,  alone  by  him- 
self; who,  willing  it,  called  into  being  what  had  no  being  be- 
fore, except  that  when  he  willed  to  call  it  into  being,  he  had 
full  knowledge  of  what  was  to  be."  Here  is  the  One  Infinite 
Father,  who  is  above  all,  without  co-equal,  the  Originator  of 
adl  things.  But,  like  the  other  ante-Nicene  Fathers,  Hippo- 
*  Hist.  Christ.  Dogm.,  p.  163. 


HIPPOLYTUS;    A  NEW  WITNESS.  181 

lytiis  believed,  that,  in  creating  the  world,  God  made  use  of 
a  subordinate  being,  or  instrument,  which  was  the  Logos,  or 
Son.  "  This  sole  and  universal  God,"  Hippolytus  says,  "  first 
by  his  cogitation  begets  the  Word  (Logos),  .  .  .  the  indwell- 
ing Reason  of  the  universe."  "  When  he  (the  Logos)  came 
forth  from  Him  who  begat  him,  being  his  first-begotten  speech, 
he  had  in  himself  the  ideas  conceived  by  the  Father.  When, 
therefore,  the  Father  commanded  that  the  world  should  be, 
the  Logos  accomplished  it  in  detail,  pleasing  God."  Again : 
this  or  that  effect  took  place,  "  so  far  as  the  commanding  God 
willed  that  the  Logos  should  accomplish  it."  Here  is  subordi- 
nation as  unequivocally  expressed  as  language  can  declare  it. 
God  is  the  Original :  he  commands,  and  the  Son,  or  Logos, 
performs.  "  These  things  he  (God)  made  by  the  Logos,"  the 
"  only-begotten  child  of  the  Father,  the  light-bringing  voice, 
anterior  to  the  morning  star."  In  common  with  the  other 
Fathers,  Hippolytus  applies  to  the  Son  the  title  "  God,"  be- 
cause begotten  of  the  substance  of  God,  and  not  created  out 
of  nothing,  as  other  things  were  ;  but  he  clearly  distinguishes 
him  from  the  Supreme,  Infinite  One.  We  discover  in  the 
confession,  as  Bunsen  gives  it,  no  mention  of  the  Spirit  as  a 
distinct  manifestation.  Bunsen  quotes  G.  A.  Meier  as  assert- 
ing "  the  fact,  that  Hippolytus  decidedly  ascribes  no  person- 
ality to  the  Holy  Spirit."  * 

The  creed  of  this  old  bishop,  who,  as  we  are  told,  "  received 
the  traditions  and  doctrine  of  the  Apostolic  age  fi-om  an  unsus- 
pected source,"  is  certainly  not  Athanasian.  Well  might 
Bunsen  pronounce  the  "  doctrinal  system  of  the  ante-Nicene 
Church,"  among  the  teachers  of  which  he  assigns  to  Hippo- 
lytus so  elevated  a  place,  "  irreconcilable  with  the  letter  and 
authority  of  the  formularies  of  the  Constantinian,  and,  in  gen- 
eral, of  the  Byzantine  councils,  and  with  the  medigeval  systems 
built  upon  them."  He  subjoins,  "  I  say  that  it  is  irreconcil- 
able with  that  letter  and  that  authority,  as  much  as  these  are 
with  the  Bible  and  common  sense ;  and  I  add,  it  would  be 
fiilly  as  irreconcilable  with  the  Byzantine  and  Roman  churches 
If  Arianism  had  pi'e vailed."     In  what  sense  this  latter  asser- 

*  [See  Meier's  Lehre  von  der  TriniUit,  i.  88;  Bunsen's  Christianity  and  Man- 
kind, i.  464.  — Ed.] 


182  ORIGEN,   AND    HIS    THEOLOGY. 

tion  is  true,  will  appear  when  we  come  to  treat  of  Arius  and 
the  Arian  controversy.* 

We  now  proceed  to  Origen's  views  of  the  Son  and  Spirit. 
Like  the  preceding  Fathers,  he  regarded  the  Son  as  the  first 
production  of  the  Father ;  having  emanated  from  him  as  light 
from  the  sun,  and  thus  partaking  of  the  same  substance  ;  that 
is,  a  divine.  He  believed,  however,  that  God  and  the  Son 
constituted  two  individual  essences,  two  beings.  This  belief 
he  distinctly  avows  in  more  than  one  instance,  and  the  general 
strain  of  his  writings  implies  it.  He  disclaims  being  of  the 
number  of  those  "  who  deny  that  the  Father  and  Son  are  two 
substances";  and  proceeds  to  assert  that  they  "are  two  things 
as  to  their  essence,  but  one  in  consent,  concord,  and  identity 
of  will."!  He  quotes  the  Saviour's  words,  "I  and  my  Father 
are  one,"  which  he  explains  as  referring  solely  to  unity  of  will 
and  affection  ;  and  refers,  in  illustration,  to  Acts  iv.  32  :  "And 
the  multitude  of  them  that  believed  were  of  one  heart  and  one 
soul."     Again :    from  the  circumstance   that  Jesus  is   called 

*  For  the  above  quotations  from  Bunsen  we  refer  our  readers  to  his 
"  Christianity  and  Mankind,  their  Beginnings  and  Prospects  ";  a  work  in 
seven  volumes,  in  which  will  be  found  a  second  edition  of  his  "  Hippolytus 
and  his  Age  "  (London,  1854).  See  especially  the  preface  to  the  first  volume, 
and  pp.  400-404,  where  the  confession  of  Hippolytus  is  given;  also  p.  464. 
"I  doubt  not,"  says  Bunsen,  "that  some  people  will  think  it  their  duty  to 
prove  that  Hippolytus  had  the  correct  doctrine  respecting  the  Athanasian 
definition  of  the  three  persons.  It  is  true,  he  says  the  contrary ;  but  tiiat 
does  not  signify  with  the  doctors  of  the  old  school."  —  Vol.  i.  p.  466. 

Hippolytus  was,  says  Bunsen,  the  "  first  preacher  of  note  whom  the 
Church  of  Rome  ever  produced."  Tliere  were  "no  homilies  by  a  bishop  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  known  before  those  of  Leo  the  Great,"  a.  d.  440.  Clem- 
ant,  "  the  only  learned  Roman  bishop  of  the  old  time,  wrote  an  Epistle,  but 
no  homily."  From  that  time  to  the  end  of  the  second  century,  the  Shepherd 
of  Hernias  is  the  "only  specimen  of  (Christian)  literature  connected  with 
Rome."  —  Vol.  i.  pp.  265,  472. 

t  Cont.  Cfls.,  lib.  viii.  §  12.  "  Two  in  essence."  The  term  in  the  original  is 
hypostasis,  essence.  In  this  sense  it  was  always  used  by  the  early  Fathers, 
and  not  in  the  modern  sense.  Huet  says,  "  TnoaTaaig  pro  ovaia  priscis  tem- 
poribus  solebat  usurpari  ab  Ethnicis  et  Christianis."  He  refers  to  Jerome 
(Episl.  57,  ad  Damas.),  from  whom  he  quotes  the  assertion,  "  Tola  scecularium 
literarum  schola  nihil  aliud  viroaraaiv  nisi  ovaiav  novlt."  He  then  adds,  "  Ita 
Bumpserunt  Nica^ni  Patres,  ita  Sardicenses"  (Orig.,  lib.  ii.  c.  ii,  qusest.  2,  §  3). 
That  such  was  the  meaning  of  the  term,  as  used  by  the  ancient  Fathers,  ad 
mits  of  no  dispute.  So  Brucker,  Petavius,  Du  Pin,  and  the  learned  Trinita 
rians  generally,  decide. 


INFERIORITY   OF   THE    SON.  183 

"light"  in  the  Gospel  of  John  (i.  4,  5,  9),  and,  in  his  Epistle 
(1  John  i.  5),  God  is  said  to  be  "  light,"  some,  he  observes, 
may  infer  that  "  the  Father  does  not  differ  from  the  Son  in 
essence."  But  this  inference,  he  proceeds  to  say,  would  be 
wrong ;  for  "  the  light,  which  shines  in  darkness,  and  is  not 
comprehended  by  it,  is  not  the  same  with  that  in  which  there 
is  no  darkness  at  all."  The  Father  and  the  Son,  he  then 
says,  are  "  two  lights."  *  This,  surely,  is  not  the  reasoning  of 
a  Trinitarian.  Once  more :  he  expresses  his  disapprobation 
of  the  hypothesis  that  "  the  Spirit  has  no  proper  essence 
diverse  from  the  Father  and  Son,"  and  adds,  "  We  believe 
that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  three  essences,  or 
three  substances."  f 

Let  us  next  hear  what  he  says  of  the  inferiority  of  the  Son. 
Jerome,  who  had  access  to  several  of  his  works  which  are  now 
lost,  or  have  come  down  to  us  in  a  corrupt  and  mutilated  form, 
accuses  him  of  saying  that  "  the  Son  was  not  begotten,  but 
made  ";  that,  "  compared  with  the  Father,  he  is  a  very  small 
light,  which  appears  great  to  us  on  account  of  our  feebleness." 
Again  :  Origen,  he  says,  "  takes  the  example  of  two  images, 
a  larger  and  smaller ;  of  which  one  fills  the  world,  and  be- 
comes in  some  sort  invisible  by  its  magnitude  ;  the  other  falls 
within  the  limits  of  distinct  vision.  To  the  former  he  com- 
pares the  Father;  to  the  latter,  the  Son."  He  attributes, 
continues  Jerome,  "  perfect  goodness  "  only  to  the  "  Omnipo- 
tent Father,"  and  does  not  allow  "  the  Son  to  be  good  "  (that 
is,  in  an  absolute  sense),  "  but  only  a  certain  breath  and  image 
of  goodness."  J 

But  let  us  listen  to  Origen  himself.  In  his  commentaries 
on  John,  he  pronounces  "  God  the  Logos,"  or  Son,  to  be 
"  surpassed  by  the  God  of  the  universe."  §  Commenting  on 
John  i.  3,  "All  things  were  made  by  him,"  he  observes,  that 
the  particle  by  or  through  (8ia),  is  never  referred  to  the  pri- 
mary agent,  but  only  to  the  secondary  and  subordinate  ;  and 
he  takes,  as  an  example,  Heb.  i.  2,  "  By  whom  also  he  made 
the  worlds,"  or  ages.    By  this  expression,  he  says,  Paul  meant 

*   Comm.  in  Joan.,  t.  ii.  §  18;  0pp.,  iv.  76. 

t  Ibid.,  §  6 ;  0pp.,  iv.  61.  J  Epist.  94,  al.  59,  ad  Avit. 

§  Comm.  in  Joan.,  t.  ii.  §  3  ;   0pp.,  iv.  53. 


184  OEIGEN,    AND   HIS   THEOLOGY. 

to  teach  us  that  "  God  made  the  ages  by  the  Son  "  as  an  in- 
strument. So  he  adds,  in  the  place  under  consideration,  "  If 
all  things  were  made  (8ta)  through  the  Logos,  they  were  not 
made  (utto)  by  him  "  (that  is,  as  the  primary  cause),  "  but  by 
a  greater  and  better ;  and  who  can  that  be  but  the  Fathei'.?"  * 
Again  :  Jesus  is  called  the  "  true  light ";  and  in  "  proportion 
as  God,  the  Father  of  truth,  is  greater  than  truth,  and  the 
Father  of  wisdom  is  more  noble  and  excellent  than  wisdom,  — 
in  the  same  proportion,"  says  Origen,  "he  excels  the  true 
lio-ht."  f  Again  :  the  Son  and  Spirit,  he  says,  "  are  excelled 
by  the  Father,  as  much  or  more  than  they  excel  other  beings." 
—  "  He  is  in  no  respect  to  be  compared  with  the  Father  ;  for 
he  is  the  image  of  his  goodness,  and  the  effulgence,  not  of 
God,  but  of  his  glory  and  of  his  eternal  light ;  and  a  ray,  not 
of  the  Father,  but  of  his  power,  and  a  pure  emanation  of  his 
most  powerful  glory,  and  a  spotless  mirror  of  his  energy."  $ 
Again :  "  The  Father,  who  sent  him  (Jesus),  is  alone  good, 
and  greater  than  he  who  was  sent."  § 

Ao-ain :  Origen  contends  that  Christ  is  not  the  object  of 
supreme  worship  ;  and  that  prayer,  properly  such,  ought  never 
to  be  addressed  to  him,  but  is  to  be  oflPered  to  the  God  of  the 
universe,  through  his  only-begotten  Son,  who,  as  our  interces- 
sor and  high  priest,  bears  our  petitions  to  the  throne  of  his 
Father  and  our  Father,  of  his  God  and  our  God.  On  this 
subject  he  is  very  full  and  explicit.  "  Prayer  is  not  to  be 
directed,"  he  says,  "  to  one  begotten,  —  not  even  to  Christ 
himself;  but  to  the  God  and  Father  of  the  universe  alone,  to 
whom  also  our  Saviour  prayed,  and  to  whom  he  teaches  us 
to  pray.  When  his  disciples  said,  '  Teach  us  to  pray,'  he 
taught  them  to  pray,  not  to  himself,  but  to  the  Father,  saying, 
'  Our  Father,  who  art  in  heaven.'  For  if  the  Son,"  he  con- 
tinues, "  be  different  from  the  Father  in  essence,  as  we  have 
proved  in  another  place,  we  must  either  pray  to  the  Son,  and 
not  to  the  Father,  or  to  both,  or  to  the  Father  alone.  But  no 
one  is  so  absurd  as  to  maintain  that  we  are  to  pray  to  the  Son, 
and  not  to  the  Father.  If  prayer  is  addressed  to  both,  we 
ought  to  use  the  plural  number,  and  say,  '  Forgive,  bless,  pre- 

*  Comm.  in  Joan.,  t.  ii.  §  6 ;  0pp.,  iv.  60.      t  Ibid.,  t.  ii.  §  18  ;  0pp.,  iv.  76. 
X  Ibid.,  t.  xiii.  §  25;  0pp.,  iv.  235,  236.        §  Ibid.,  t.  vi.  §  23;  0pp.,  iv.  139, 


THE   SON    NOT    AN    OBJECT    OP    PRAYER.  185 

serve  ye  us,'  or  something  like  it ;  but  as  this  is  not  a  fit  mode 
of  address,  and  no  example  of  it  occurs  in  the  Scriptures,  it 
remains  that  we  pray  to  the  Father  of  the  universe  alone." 
He  adds,  "  But  as  he,  who  would  pray  as  he  ought,  must  not 
pray  to  him  who  himself  prays,  but  to  Him  whom  Jesus  our 
Lord  taught  us  to  invoke  in  prayer  (namely,  the  Father),  so 
no  prayer  is  to  be  offered  to  the  Father  without  him  ;  which 
he  clearly  shows  when  he  says  (John  xvi.  23,  24),  '  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in 
my  name,  he  shall  give  it  you.  Hitherto  ye  have  asked  noth- 
ing in  my  name  :  ask,  and  ye  shall  receive,  that  your  joy  may 
be  full,'  For  he  does  not  say,  'Ask  me,'  nor  'Ask  the  Fa- 
ther,' simply ;  but, ,'  If  ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in  my  name, 
he  shall  give  it  you.'  For,  iintil  Jesus  had  thus  tauglit  them, 
no  one  had  asked  the  Father  in  the  name  of  the  Son  ;  and 
what  he  said  was  true  :  '  Hitherto  ye  have  asked  nothing  in 
my  name.' "  And  again :  "  What  are  we  to  infer,"  asks 
Origen,  "  fi'om  the  question,  '  Why  call  ye  me  good  ?  There 
is  none  good  but  one,  —  God  the  Father.'  What  but  that  he 
meant  to  say,  '  Why  pray  to  me  ?  It  is  proper  to  pray  to  the 
Father  alone,  to  whom  I  pray,  as  ye  learn  from  the  Scriptures. 
For  ye  ought  not  to  pray  to  him  who  is  constituted  by  the 
Father  high  priest  for  you,  and  who  has  received  the  office  of 
advocate  from  the  Father,  but  through  the  high  priest  and 
advocate,  who  can  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  your  infirmi- 
ties ;  having  been  tempted  in  all  respects  as  ye  are,  but,  by 
the  gift  of  the  Father,  tempted  without  sin.  Learn,  therefore, 
how  great  a  gift  ye  have  received  of  my  Father ;  having  ob- 
tained, through  generation  in  me,  the  spirit  of  adoption,  by 
which  ye  have  a  title  to  be  called  the  sons  of  God  and  my 
brethren,  as  I  said  to  the  Father  concerning  you,  by  the 
mouth  of  David,  "  I  will  declare  thy  name  to  my  brethren ; 
in  the  midst  of  the  assembly  I  will  sing  praise  to  thee."  But 
it  is  not  according  to  reason  for  a  brother  to  be  addressed  in 
prayer  by  those  who  are  glorified  by  the  same  Father.  Ye 
are  to  pray  to  the  Father  alone,  with  and  through  me.'  "  * 

This  we  take  to  be  sound  Unitarianism.     Indeed,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  impropriety  of  addressing  the  Son  in  prayer  could 
*  De  Orat.,  §  15 ;  0pp.,  i.  222,  223. 


186  ORIGEN,    AND   HIS   THEOLOGY. 

not  have  been  better  argued  by  the  most  strenuous  advocate 
for  the  divine  unity  at  the  present  day. 

We  have  thus  shown,  as  we  think,  conclusively,  that  Origen 
believed  God  and  the  Son  to  be  two  essences,  two  substances, 
two  beings  ;  that  he  placed  the  Son  at  an  immense  distance 
from  the  Infinite  One,  and  was  strongly  impressed  with  the 
impropriety  of  addressing  him  in  prayer,  strictly  so  called ; 
that  he  viewed  him,  however,  as  standing  at  the  head  of  all 
God's  offspring,  and  with  them,  and  for  them,  as  his  younger 
brethren,  whom  he  had  been  appointed  to  teach  and  to  save, 
offering  prayer  at  the  throne  of  the  Eternal.  Still  Origen 
does  not  liesitate  to  apply  the  terms  "  creature  "  and  "  made  " 
to  him,  and  asserts  that  he  was  begotten,  not  from  an  inner 
necessity,  but  ''  by  the  will  of  the  Father,  the  first-born  of 
every  creature." 

To  the  Spirit,  Origen  assigned  a  place  below  the  Son,  by 
whom,  according  to  him,  it  was  made.  To  the  Spirit  the 
office  of  redeeming  the  human  race  properly  pertained ;  but, 
it  being  incompetent  to  so  great  a  work,  the  Son,  who  alone 
was  adequate  to  accomplish  it,  engaged.*  The  Father,  he 
says,  pervades  all  things ;  the  Son,  only  beings  endowed  with 
reason ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  only  the  sanctified,  or  saved. 

We  have  reserved  for  the  last  place  a  very  remarkable  pas- 
sage relating  to  the  comparative  rank  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Spirit.  It  contains  a  plain  and  direct  assertion,  and  is  enough 
of  itself  to  decide  the  question  respecting  Origen's  opinions. 
He  says,  "  Greater  is  the  power  of  the  Father  than 

THAT  OF  the  SoN  AND  THE  HoLY  SpIRIT  ;  AND  GREATER 
THAT  OF  THE  SoN  THAN  THAT  OF  THE  HoLY  SpIRIT  ;  AND 
AGAIN,    THE    POWER    OF    THE    HOLY    SpiRIT    SURPASSES    THAT 

OF  OTHER  HOLY  THINGS."  Sucli  language  needs  no  com- 
ment.f 

Neander  asserts  that  Origen  was  the  first  who  clearly  "  ex- 
pressed the  idea  of  eternal  generation."  But  this  was  in 
connection  with  some  refined  and  idealistic  speculations  con- 

*  Comm.  in  Joan.,  t.  ii.  §  6;  0pp.,  iv.  60-64.  See  also  Jerome,  Epist.  94,  ad 
Avit. 

t  De  Princip.,  lib.  i.  c.  3,  §  5 ;  0pp.,  i.  62.  Justinian  quotes  the  passage  in 
his  Epistle  on  the  errors  of  Origen,  addressed  to  Menas  or  Mennas,  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople.     ConciL,  t.  vi.  p.  145,  ed.  Coleti. 


ETERNAL   GENERATION.  187 

serning  the  relation  of  God  to  time ;  the  same  which,  accoid- 
iiig  to  Neander,  led  him  to  "advance  the  idea  of  an  eternal 
creation,  —  a  derivation  of  the  creation  from  God  by  virtue  of 
an  eternal  beginning."  We  are  willing  to  admit,  that  if  the 
material  creation,  according  to  the  opinion  of  this  Father,  was 
eternal,  the  generation  of  the  Son  might  have  been  so  too. 

The  above-qiToted  expi*essions  of  Neander  are  taken  from 
his  "  Lectures  on  the  History  of  Christian  Dogmas,"  derived 
from  notes  furnished  by  his  hearers  after  his  death.  In  his 
"  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and  Church,"  we  find  a 
somewhat  more  explicit  statement  of  his  views  on  the  subjects 
referred  to.  He  there  speaks  of  the  difficulty  of  conceiving 
that  Almighty  Power  and  Goodness  could  exist  without  being 
forever  active.  "  The  transition  fi'om  a  state  of  inactivity  to 
the  act  of  creation,"  he  says,  "  is  inconceivable,  wdthout  a 
change  which  is  incompatible  with  the  being  of  a  God."  If 
this  was  Origen's  view,  he  might  well  find  "  reasons  against 
a  beginning  of  creation  generally ";  and  Avould,  of  course, 
attempt  to  divest  the  generation  of  the  Son  of  all  "  temporal 
conditions."  "  He,"  says  Neander,  "  who  fixed  no  begin- 
ning to  creation,  but  supposed  it  to  be  eternal,  would  far  less 
fix  any  beginning  here.  He  strove  to  banish  all  notions  of 
time  from  the  conception  of  the  generation  of  the  Logos. 
It  was  necessary  here,  as  he  thought,  to  conceive  of  a  timeless 
present,  an  eternal  now ";  and  this  he  supposed  to  be  inti- 
mated by  the  expression  "  to-day,"  in  the  second  Psalm. 
Origen  was  led  into  this  view,  Neander  says,  by  his  "  philo- 
sophical education  in  the  Platonic  school."  *  He  held  the 
"  Platonic  idea  of  an  endless  becoming.''^  He  was  careful, 
however,  to  affirm  that  the  generation  of  the  Son  was  by  act 

*  Others  deny  that  Origen  taught  the  doctrine  here  ascribed  to  him  relat- 
ing to  tlie  eternity  of  the  Son.  Tlie  expressions  mainly  reHed  upon  to  prove 
that  he  lield  this  doctrine,  it  is  to  be  observed,  are  talien  from  Athanasius, 
who  may  not  have  reported  them  correctly.  (See  Martini,  Versuch,  etc., 
p.  159.)  "  Though  from  liis  idealistic  position,"  says  Hagenbach  (First 
Period,  §  47),  "  Origen  denied  eternity  to  matter  ...  he  nevertheless  assumed 
the  eternal  creation  of  innumerable  ideal  worlds,  solely  because  he,  as  little  aa 
Clement,  could  not  conceive  of  God  as  unoccupied,"  "for  to  say  the  nature 
of  God  is  idle  and  inactive,  is  alike  impious  and  absurd."  It  is  not  surprising 
that  a  species  of  reasoning  so  abstract  and  refined  should  be  found  irrecon- 
cilable with  what  Origen  elsewhere  states  relating  to  the  facts  of  creation. 


188  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS  THEOLOGY. 

of  the  "  divine  will ";  and,  by  the  acknowledgment  of  Nean- 
der,  he  believed  the  Son  to  be  subordinate.  "  It  appeared  to 
him  something  like  a  profanation  of  the  first  and  supreme 
essence,"  says  Neander,  "to  suppose  an  equality  or  a  unity 
between  him  and  any  other  being  whatever,  —  not  excepting 
the  Son  of  God.  As  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
incomparably  exalted  above  all  other  existences,  even  in  the 
highest  ranks  of  the  spiritual  world,  so  high,  and  yet  higher, 
is  the  Father  exalted  above  them." 

A  similar  account  is  given  by  Gieseler.  He  states,  as  one 
of  the  two  great  principles  which  "  ran  through  the  whole  of 
the  Alexandrian  theology,"  that  "  the  Godhead  can  never  be 
unemployed ;  so  that  an  endless  series  of  worlds  preceded  the 
present,  and  an  endless  series  of  worlds  will  follow  it."  Giese- 
ler adds,  "  The  Alexandrians  speak  of  the  Logos  as  a  highly 
exalted  being ;  evidently,  however,  they  make  him  inferior  to 
the  Supreme  God.  '  The  wish  to  remove  everything  that 
would  be  unworthy  of  God  from  the  notion  of  the  generation 
of  the  Son  led  at  last  to  the  doctrine  taught  by  Origen,  that 
the  Logos  did  not  proceed  from  the  essence  of  the  Father,  but 
was  produced  by  the  will  of  God,  generated  from  all  eternity. 
He  taught  also  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  created  by  the  Son." 
In  support  of  the  statement  relating  to  the  inferiority  of  the 
Son,  Gieseler  adduces  ample  testimony  from  the  writings  of 
both  Clement  and  Origen ;  and,  for  other  parts  of  the  state- 
ment, he  quotes  largely  from  Origen.  How  these  views  are 
to  be  reconciled  with  the  modern  Trinity,  we  do  not  see.* 

*  Neander's  Lectures  on  the  History  of  Christian  Dogmas,  pp.  120,  146-148 ; 
History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and  Church,  vol.  i.  pp.  568,  588,  590,  Torrey's 
trans. ;  Gieseler's  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i.  pp.  138-140,  ed.  Philadelphia, 
1836. 

It  has  been  made  a  question,  whether,  according  to  the  Alexandrian  doc- 
trine, Origen  taught,  as  it  has  been  asserted  of  him,  that  matter  originally 
flowed  from  the  bosom  of  God.  The  principle  well  accords  with  several  parts 
of  his  system,  though  we  are  not  aware  that  he  has  anywhere  expressly  as- 
serted it  as  regards  the  origin  of  matter.  Beausobre  thinks  that  his  real 
opinion  was,  not  that  matter  originally  emanated  from  the  substance  of  God; 
that  all  lie  meant  to  affirm  was,  that  God  never  existed  for  a  moment  without 
exercising  his  perfections,  and,  consequently,  without  an  act  of  creation  ;  and 
that,  in  this  sense,  he  supposed  matter  to  be  eternal.  On  the  emanative  prin- 
ciple, it  might  be  said  to  be  eternal,  as  proceeding  from  the  bosom  of  the 
Eternal  One.     It  is  easy  to  see,  that,  along  with  such  speculations  on  the  cos- 


THE    MONARCHIANS.  189 

That  the  whole  "  Logos  doctrine,"  as  it  is  called,  was  by 
many  regarded  as  an  innovation,  very  clearly  appears.  Nean- 
der,  in  his  "  Lectures  on  Christian  Dogmas,"  notices  what  he 
calls  a  "  Unitarian  monotheistic  interest  "  as  manifesting  itself 
about  the  time  of  Origen,  or  a  little  earlier.  He  quotes  Ter- 
tullian  as  saying  that  "  ignorant  people  "  were  "  alarmed  at 
the  names  of  the  Trinity,  and  accuse  us  (that  is,  the  philo- 
sophical Christians)  of  wishing  to  teach  three  Gods,  while 
they  would  be  worshippers  of  one  God."  These  were  the 
Monarchians,  as  they  were  denominated ;  one  class  of  whom 
was  represented  by  Artemon,  who  appeared  about  this  time. 
The  history  of  Artemon  is  obscure.  Whether  or  not  he  had 
any  connection  with  Theodotus,  a  worker  in  leather  and  here- 
siarch  from  Byzantium,  the  learned  are  unable  to  decide.  It 
is  worthy  of  notice,  that  he  claimed  for  his  opinions  the  author- 
ity of  antiquity.  Eusebius,  in  the  twenty-seventh  and  twenty- 
eighth  chai)ters  of  the  fifth  book  of  his  history,  alludes  to 
several  books  written  by  persons  whose  names  were  unknown 
to  him ;  and,  among  others,  one  against  the  heresy  of  Arte- 
mon, from  which  he  gives  an  extract.  There  is  an  uncer- 
tainty attending  the  views  of  both  Theodotus  and  Artemon, 
some  attributino;  to  them  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of 
Joseph  and  Mary ;  others  telling  us  that  one  or  both  of  them, 
Artemon  certairdy,  believed  him  to  have  been  born  of  a  virgin 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  so  to  have  had  something  divine  in 
him :  a  "  certain  divine  energy  "  uniting  itself  with  him  from 
the  first,  the  divinity  of  the  Father  in  some  way  acting  in 
him.     But  what  is  important  is,  that  Artemon,  in  thus  believ- 

mogony,  the  generation  of  the  Son  might  be  disengaged  from  the  idea  of 
time.  We  are  willing  that  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  generation  should  stand 
on  the  ground  on  which  Origen  virtually  put  it ;  that  is,  eternity  may  be 
ascribed  to  the  Son  in  the  same  sense  in  whicli  it  may  be  ascribed  to  the 
material  creation,  and  only  in  that  sense.  This  is  not  what  modern  Trinita- 
rians mean. 

According  to  Jerome  (Epist.  94,  al.  59,  ad  Avit.),  Origen  taught  that  all 
bodies,  that  is,  all  of  the  grosser  sort,  will  be  finally  converted  into  spiritual 
substances;  that  all  corporeal  nature  will  be  reduced  back  to  the  divine,  which 
is  the  "  most  excellent";  and  then  "  God  will  be  all  in  all."  See  Beausobre, 
Eistoire  de  Manichee  et  du  Maniche'isme,  t.  ii.  pp.  284,  285.  Also  Brucker,  Hist. 
Crit.  Phil.,  t.  iii.  p.  443 ;  and  Huet.  Origeniana,  lib.  ii.  c.  ii.  qutest.  2,  §  24 ;  and 
3uaest.  12,  §  2. 


190  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS   THEOLOGY. 

ing,  claimed  to  hold  the  primitive  doctrine.  In  the  extract 
just  referred  to,  given  by  Eusebius,  we  read,  "  They  affirm 
that  all  the  ancients,  and  the  very  Apostles,  received  and 
taught  the  same  things  which  they  now  assert ;  and  that  the 
preaching  of  the  truth  was  preserved  till  the  times  of  Victor, 
who,  from  Peter,  was  the  thirteenth  Bishop  of  Rome  ;  but, 
from  the  times  of  his  successor  Zephyrinus,  the  truth  has  been 
adulterated."  Against  the  accuracy  of  these  assertions,  the 
author  quoted  by  Eusebius  stoutly  argues;  but  there  the  asser- 
tions stand,  made  with  great  confidence  and  evidently  in  good 
faith.  Artemon's  claim  to  hold  the  ancient  doctrine  has  some- 
what perplexed  the  advocates  of  the  antiquity  of  the  "  Logos 
doctrine."  It  is  to  them  an  ugly  fact,  difficult  to  be  disposed 
of.  Dr.  Baur,  as  represented  by  Neander,  supposed  the 
"Logos  doctrine"  to  have  been  a  compromise,  or  an  "attempt 
at  mediation,"  between  diffi^rent  parties.  This,  it  will  be  per- 
ceived, supposes  it  not  to  have  been  the  ancient  doctrine. 

Neander  says,  that,  "  since  it  has  been  found  that  the  Mon- 
archians  of  the  third  century  appeal  to  the  agreement  of  the 
older  Roman  bishops  with  their  views,  modern  inquirers  have 
been  led  to  infer  from  this  circvunstance  that  the  Monarchian 
tenet  was  in  this  church  originally  the  prevailing  one,  while 
the  doctrine  of  the  Lojios  was  unknown  to  it."  .  Again : 
"  When  they  (the  Artemonites)  asserted,  that,  from  the  time 
of  Victor's  successor  Zephyrinus,  the  true  doctrine  of  this 
church  became  obscured,  some  fact  must  be  lying  at  the  bot- 
tom of  this  assertion  ;  which,  unhappily,  in  the  absence  of  his- 
torical data,  it  is  impossible,  at  present,  accurately  to  ascer- 
tain." The  problem  is  not  one  in  which  we  feel  any  special 
interest;  and  we  leave  the  solution  of  it  to  those  who  maintain 
that  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  the  old  doctrine. 
We  will  only  add,  that  the  book  from  which  Eusebius  made 
the  extract  above  referred  to  is  supposed  by  Bunsen  to  have 
been  the  "  Little  Labyrinth,"  which  he  thinks  was,  without 
doubt,  written  by  Hij^polytus.* 

The  Artemonites  were  many  of  them  men  of  scientific  cul- 

*  See  Eusebius,  Hist.,  v.  27,  28;  Neander,  Hist.  Christ.  Dogm.,  pp.  149- 
153;  IliHt.  Christ.  Rilig.  and  Church,  i.  576-582;  Bunsen,  Chrislianitij  and  Man- 
kind, i.  402,  439,  etc. 


THE   MONARCHIANS.  191 

ture.  They  "  busied  themselves  a  good  deal  with  mathe- 
matics, dialectics,  and  criticism."  They  were  reflective  and 
philosophical ;  their  intellectual  tendencies  led  them  to  elimi- 
nate almost  entirely  the  mystical  element  from  their  theology. 
They  were  admirers,  says  Eusebius,  of  Aristotle  and  Theo- 
phrastus.  Neander  has  a  remark  in  this  connection,  Avhich  is 
worth  noticing.  "  We  perceive  here,"  says  he,  "  the  different 
kinds  of  influence  exerted  by  the  systems  of  philosophers ;  the 
Platonic  being  employed  to  defend  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
divinity,  while  the  opposite  direction  of  mind,  tending  to  com- 
bat that  docti'ine,  leaned  to  the  side  of  the  Aristotelian." 
The  Artemonites  brought  criticism  to  bear  on  the  text  both 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  They  had,  according  to 
Eusebius,  copies  of  the  Scriptures  corrected  by  different  hands, 
to  which  they  appealed. 

The  other  class  of  Monarchians,  which  appeared  about  the 
same  time,  consisted  of  Praxea's,  Noetus,  and  Beryllus.  In 
their  opinions  they  differed  somewhat  from  Theodotus  and 
Artemon,  though  equally  with  them  they  stood  in  antagonism 
to  the  prevailing  Logos  doctrine.  The  precise  shades  of  their 
belief  it  is  difficult  to  determine.  Of  Praxeas  we  know  little 
except  what  we  gather  from  the  pages  of  TertuUian,  who 
hated  him  for  the  active  part  he  took  against  Montanus  and 
Montanism.  He  was  called  by  his  antagonists  a  Patripassian. 
He  came  from  Asia  Minor,  the  "  fatherland  of  Monarchian- 
ism  "  ;  thence  he  went  to  Rome,  where  his  opinions  met  no 
opposition.  He  afterwards  proceeded  to  Carthage,  where  he 
encountered  the  stern -faced  TertuUian.  His  ideas  of  the 
union  of  the  Father  and  Son  are  not  very  clear ;  only  he  was 
understood  to  deny  the  personality  of  the  Logos  in  the  Son, 
referring  all  to  the  Father.  It  is  certain  that  he  strenuously 
iisserted  the  unity  of  God ;  and  one  of  the  charges  he  brought 
against  the  prevailing  orthodoxy,  which  TertuUian  attempted 
to  refute,  was  that  it  taught  a  "  plurality  of  Gods ;  "  that  is, 
by  means  of  the  Logos  doctrine. 

Noetus,  who  was,  too,  of  Asiatic  origin,  and  who  found  an 
op])onent  in  Hippolytus,  as  Praxeas  did  in  TertuUian,  and 
Beryllus  afterwards  in  Origen,  was  also  strongly  in  the  "  Uni- 
tarian Monotheistic  interest."     His  views  are  not  more  pre- 


192  ORIGEN,   AND   HIS  THEOLOGY. 

cisely  defined,  at  least  in  any  writing  which  has  come  down  tc 
us,  than  those  of  Praxeas,  to  which  they  bore  a  certain  resem- 
blance. He  believed  in  one  God  the  Father,  who  manifested 
himself  in  the  Son,  the  Logos  not,  however,  becoming  in  him 
a  separate  personality.  He  claimed  that  his  doctrine  only 
tended  to  "  honor  Christ,"  while  it  preserved  the  unity  of  God. 
He,  as  well  as  Praxeas,  was  called  a  Patripassian. 

Beryllus,  bishop  of  Bostra  in  Arabia,  was  another  of  the 
group.*  He  held,  so  far  as  we  can  gather  on  a  subject  con- 
fessedly very  obscure,  and  about  which  writers  materially 
differ,  that  Christ  had  no  personal  existence  before  his  appear- 
ance on  earth,  though  while  on  earth  the  divinity  of  the  Father 
dwelt  in  him,  having  united  itself  with  him  at  his  birth. 
Neander  ascribes  to  him  a  "  conciliatory  position,"  a  "  midway 
tendency,"  more  successfully  developed  afterwards  in  Sabel- 
lius.  He  finally  yielded  through  the  influence  of  Origen,  and 
became  reconciled  to  the  Church.  He  was  classed  with  the 
Patripassians.  It  was  the  Council  assembled  against  Beryllus, 
as  Neander  thinks,  which  established  the  doctrine,  firmly  held 
by  Origen,  that  Christ  possessed  a  rational  human  soul,  before 
denied,  the  Logos,  from  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  at  least, 
being  supposed  to  supply  the  place  of  it.f 

So  unsatisfactory  to  multitudes  of  minds  was  the  doctrine 
of  the  Plutonizing  Fathers  concerning  the  Logos,  or  Son.  It 
called  forth  vigorous  opposition,  and  this  opposition  was  not 
confined  to  the  "simple"  and  unlettered  to  whom  Tertullian 
refers.  Those  just  named  were  generally  learned  men.  Such 
was  the  state  of  opinion  when  Origen  wrote.  His  doctrine 
was  antagonistic  to  these  Monarchian  opinions,  and  developed 
itself  partly  from  conflict  with  them. 

On  the  subject  of  Christ's  human  soul,  Origen  seems  to 
have  held  some  views  peculiar  to  himself.     He  supposed  that 

*  Euscb.  Uht.,  vi.  33 ;  Neander,  Hist.  Christ.  Relig.  and  Church,  i.  593,  594. 
For  a  general  view  of  the  whole  group,  see  Martini,  Versuch,  pp.  128-150. 
See  also  Neander,  Hist.,  i.  576-585,  591-594 ;  Dogm'.,  pp.  149-163  ;  and  Kurtz, 
Text-Book,  First  Period,  §  40. 

t  So  Justin  Martyr  makes  Christ  to  consist  of  three  principles,  "  auua  Koi 
x6yov  Kal  -ipvxnv."  {Apol.  II.,  c.  10.)  "The  Divine  Logos,"  says  Semisch 
"  occupied  in  Christ  the  place  of  reason  in  man,"  that  is,  according  to  Justia 
{Justin  Martyr,  ii.  312.)     Sec  also  Hagenbach,  First  Period,  §  66. 


THE   ATONEMENT.  193 

the  Logos,  or  divine  nature  in  Christ,  became  united  with  a 
human  rational  soul  before  his  incarnation.  He  believed  all 
souls  to  be  preexistent,  all  endowed  with  freedom.  Of  these 
souls,  which,  from  the  moment  of  their  production,  were  placed 
in  a  state  of  probation,  one,  having  used  well  its  liberty,  was, 
on  account  of  its  distinguished  sanctity,  taken  into  union  wuth 
the  Logos,  or  Son,  and  became  one  spirit  with  it,  one  sub- 
stance. This  union,  as  Origen  supposed,  prepared  the  way 
for  a  future  union  with  flesh  ;  a  divine  nature  being  incapable 
of  union  with  body,  without  some  medium.*  The  soul  thus 
honored  was  selected,  as  just  intimated,  for  its  merits.  Retain- 
ing its  immaculate  purity,  and  love  to  its  Maker,  it  was  re- 
warded by  being  raised  into  union  with  the  divine  Logos ;  and 
we,  as  Origen  further  taught,  if  we  imitate  the  singular  love 
of  Christ  to  God,  shall  be  made  partakers  of  the  same  Logos, 
and,  in  proportion  to  our  merits,  be  taken  into  union  with  it.f 
Origen  had  elevated  conceptions  of  the  moral  efficacy  of 
the  death  of  Christ ;  but  his  views  of  the  atonement  would  be 
pronounced  exceedingly  defective  and  erroneous  by  those  who 
should  judge  him  by  the  Calvinistic  standard.  He  was  fond 
of  regarding  Christ  as  the  light,  the  guide  and  pattern,  of  the 
human  soul,  as  its  purifier,  its  Redeemer  and  Saviour,  as  well 
by  his  teachings  as  by  his  death.  He  was  the  wisdom  of  the 
Father,  and  the  image  of  his  goodness  and  truth ;  as  such,  it 
was  his  appropriate  office  to  shed  light  on  the  human  spirit, 
and,  through  the  love  of  goodness,  win  it  back  to  God.  "  Like 
^11  the  Fathers  before  him,  Justin  (to  a  certain  degree)  ex- 
cepted, Origen,"  says  Bunsen,  "  had  no  idea  of  the  atonement 
in  the  sense  of  the  Anselmo-Calvinistic  theory,  —  of  satisfac- 
tion given  by  the  death  of  Jesus  to  the  Divine  Justice."  J 

*  De  Prina'p.,  lib.  ii.  c.  6. 

t  On  the  obscure  subject  of  Christ's  preexistent  human  soul,  see  Neander, 
Hist.  Christ.  Relig.  and  Church,  i.  635-639. 
X  Christianity  and  Mankind,  i.  293. 

13 


194  ORIGEN,  AND    HIS   THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Oeigen's  System  of  Rational  and  Animated  Natures.  —  All  Souls 
Preexistent.  —  Purpose  of  the  Material  Universe.  —  The  Stars 
Animated,  and  will  be  judged.  —  Tutelar  Spirits.  —  Demons. — 
Present  Condition  the  Result  of  Former  Trial.  —  Extent  of 
Christ's  Redemption. —  Celestial  Natures.  —  Origin  of  Sin. — 
Human  Ability.  —  No  Unconditional  Election. 

With  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  benefits  intended  to  be 
conveyed  by  the  death  of  Christ,  Origen  entertained  some 
very  singular,  and,  as  will  be  admitted  by  all,  exceedingly  wild 
and  visionary  notions.  But,  to  enable  our  readers  readily  to 
comprehend  his  opinion,  or  perhaps  his  conjectures,  on  this 
subject,  we  must  first  make  them  acquainted  with  his  views 
of  the  great  sj'stem  of  rational  and  animated  natures,  com- 
prehending angels,  men,  and  demons,  sun,  moon,  and  stars. 
These  views,  it  will  be  perceived,  Avere  derived  from  the  very 
fanciful  philosophy  of  the  age ;  and,  though  they  may  consti- 
tute bad  theology,  they  are  entitled,  some  of  them  at  least,  to 
our  admiration,  as  beautiful  creations  of  a  poetic  imagination. 

All  beings  endowed  with  reason,  according  to  Origen,  are  of 
one  nature,  or  essence,*  and  were  produced  long  before  the 

*  All  beings  endowed  with  reason,  including,  according  to  Jerome,  "  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  angels,  powers,  dominations,  and  other  vir- 
tues," —  all  these,  says  Jerome,  he  asserted  to  be  of  one  substance ;  though, 
at  other  times,  he  would  not  allow  the  Son  to  be  of  the  same  substance  with 
the  Father,  dreading  the  appearance  of  impiety  (Epist.  95,  ad  Avit.).  The 
expression,  "of  one  substance,"  or  one  essence,  which  is  here  employed  by 
Origen  in  reference  to  God,  angels,  and  the  souls  of  men,  is  deserving  of 
notice,  as  it  is  precisely  that  which  is  often  employed  by  the  Fathers  in  speak- 
ing of  God  and  the  Son.  The  inference  is  obvious.  Origen  "  does  not  hesi- 
tate," says  Jerome,  "  to  ascribe  the  nature  of  the  omnipotent  God  to  angels 
and  men."  And  why  should  he  refuse  to  ascribe  it  to  the  Son  1  Yet  he  did 
gometimes  refuse  from  a  principle  of  piety,  so  careful  was  he  not  to  infringe 
the  Divine  Unity.  To  the  Oriymiana  of  the  learned  Huet,  we  acknowledge 
ourselves  indebted  for  much  assistance  in  the  preparation  of  this  and  the  fol- 
lowing chapter. 


ALL   SOULS   PEEEXISTENT.  195 

foundation  of  the  visible  world.  In  this  opinion  he  was  not 
singular.  The  preexistence  of  souls  was  a  dogma  of  the 
reigning  philosophy.  At  first,  as  Origen  maintained,  they 
were  pure  intelligences,  all  glowing  with  love  to  their  Maker. 
They,  however,  possessed  entire  freedom,  and  the  capacity  of 
virtue  and  vice.  The  consequence  was,  their  primeval  love 
grew  cold,  and  they  became  in  various  degrees  estranged  from 
God,  the  fountain  and  centre  of  moral  life  and  heat.  They 
were  hence  reduced  to  different  ranks  of  beings,  and  doomed 
to  occupy  different  stations,  more  or  less  exalted  or  depressed, 
according  to  their  acquired  character  and  habits ;  and  this  visi- 
ble, material  world  was  created  for  their  reception. 

Some  were  placed  in  the  bodies  of  the  sun  and  stars,  and 
were  appointed  to  the  noble  office  of  enlightening  and  adorning 
the  universe ;  and  continue  to  shine  with  greater  or  less  splen- 
dor, according  to  their  moral  merits.  The  stars  are  thus 
animated,  endowed  with  reason,  and  have  partaken  of  sin. 
They  receive  the  commands  of  God,  and  move  in  their  pre- 
scribed courses ;  they  still  retain  the  attribute  of  freedom ; 
their  virtue  is  capable  of  increase  or  diminution  ;  and  they 
will  hereafter  be  judged.  They  are  able,  by  their  positions 
and  aspects,  to  prefigure  future  events ;  and  apostate  spirits, 
deriving  their  knowledge  from  them,  transmitted  the  arts  of 
astrology  to  man.* 

Of  others  was  formed  the  community  of  angels,  who,  accord- 
ing to  Origen,  are  clothed  with  light,  ethereal  vehicles ;  to 
which,  in  consistency  with  the  philosophical  tenets  in  w.hich 
he  was  reared,  he  seemed  inclined  to  add  bodies  of  a  grosser 
sort ;  thus  making  them  compound  beings,  like  man,  consist- 
ing of  body  and  soul.  He  assigns  them  various  offices.  He 
sometimes  speaks  of  each  individual  of  our  race  as  constantly 
attended  by  a  good  and  bad  angel.  Christians,  especially, 
enjoy  the  benefit  of  a  tutelar  spirit ;  but,  whether  appointed 
at  their  birth  or  baptism,  he  does  not  afford  us  the  means  of 
determining.  Some  preside  over  communities  and  churches ; 
and  hence,  in  the  Revelation,  we  hear  of  the  "  angels  of  the 

*  Comv}.  in  Gen.,  t.  iii.  §  5 ;  0pp.,  iii.  8,  9.  Philo,  with  whose  writings 
Origen  must  have  been  familiar,  speaks  of  the  stars  as  animals  endowed  with 
intelligence.     [De  Mundi  Opif.,  c.  24  ;  0pp.,  i.  17.) 


196  OEIGEN,    AND    HIS    THEOLOGY. 

churches";  some  over  inanimate  objects,  the  operations  of 
nature,  and  human  inventions  and  arts ;  over  plants  and  ani- 
mals :  each  having  received  the  charge  for  which  he  is,  by 
disposition,  best  fitted ;  regard  being  had  to  his  merit  or  de- 
merit in  a  preexistent  state.  Thus  Raphael  is  the  patron  of 
the  medical  art ;  to  Gabriel  are  assigned  the  affairs  of  war ; 
and  to  Michael,  for  his  piety,  the  offering  of  the  prayers  of  the 
saints.*  They  assist  in  transmitting  souls  into  bodies,  in  dis- 
engaging them  at  death,  and  conducting  them  to  judgment. 
Like  the  souls  of  stars,  they  retain  their  freedom,  and  will  be 
rewarded  or  punished  for  the  use  or  abuse  of  their  liberty. 
Finally,  they  are  entitled  to  a  degree  of  reverence  and  w^or- 
ship  corresponding  to  their  nature  and  offices ;  though  we 
must  be  careful  not  to  confound  the  regard  which  is  their  due 
with  the  supreme  adoration  due  to  God,  who  alone  is  to  be 
addressed  in  prayer.f 

The  more  guilty  spirits  were  depressed  into  the  rank  of 
demons,  who  possess  bodies  far  grosser  than  those  of  angels, 
as,  in  their  prior  state,  they  contracted  greater  impurity. 
These,  too,  retain  their  moral  liberty;  are  still  capable  of 
virtue  ;  and  may  yet 

"  Eeascend, 
Self-raised,  and  repossess  their  native  seat." 

Others  were  destined  to  become  human  souls ;  and,  for  the 
punishment  of  their  sins,  were  imprisoned  in  bodies  of  flesh, 
and  are  subjected  to  the  discipline  best  fitted  for  their  re- 
covery. 

Such,  according  to  this  Father,  is  the  general  system  of 
rational  natures.  All  existed  in  a  prior  state  ;  all  were  made 
capable  of  virtue  or  vice  ;  but,  abusing  their  liberty,  were 
degraded  from  a  superior  to  inferior  orders  of  beings.     Some 

*  De  Princip.,  lib.  i.  c.  8;  0pp.,  i.  74. 

t  From  the  above  account  of  the  offices  attributed  to  angels,  we  perceive 
how  completely  the  Heathen  notion  of  tutelar  spirits  and  genii  was  trans- 
ferred to  Christianity.  According  to  the  splendid  mythology  of  the  Pagans, 
every  grove,  temple,  stream,  and  fountain,  all  seasons  and  arts,  business  and 
pleasure,  had  their  presiding  deities.  Christianity  banished  these  fiilse  divini- 
ties from  the  earth ;  but  in  the  theology  of  the  Fathers  angels  succeeded  to 
their  places.  All  the  operations  of  Providence  were  supposed  to  be  performed 
by  their  ministrations ;  and  they  became  objects  of  reverence,  as  the  guardian 
divinities  of  the  Heatlien  had  been  before  them. 


REDEMPTION    OF    ALL    RATIONAL    NATURES.  197 

became  angels,  and  some  demons ;  some,  the  souls  of  sun, 
moon,  and  stars;  and  some  were  imprisoned  in  bodies  of  flesh.* 
The  present  condition  of  all  is  the  result  of  their  conduct  in  a 
former  state  of  trial ;  it  is  a  state  of  punishment  and  continued 
probation.  They  are  still  capable  of  recovering  themselves  ; 
are  still  free.  By  new  sin,  or  new  virtue,  they  may  be  still 
further  depressed,  or  rise  ;  they  may  regain  a  higher  order, 
and  again  relapse  and  sink :  from  men,  become  angels ;  and 
from  angels,  men. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  resume  the  subject  of  the  extent 
of  the  benefits  ascribed  by  Origen  to  the  death  of  the  Saviour. 
On  this  subject,  subsequent  Fathers  preferred  against  him 
many  and  grievous  complaints.  Thus  he  maintained,  it  is 
said,  that  Christ  suffered  for  the  redemption  of  all  rational 
natures,  including  the  souls  of  men,  angels,  demons,  sun, 
moon,  and  stars.  He  asserted,  says  Theophilus  of  Alexan- 
dria,! that  Christ  was  "  fixed  to  the  cross  for  demons,  and 
wicked  spirits  above  ";  and  Jerome  accuses  him  of  saying  that 
he  had  "  often  suffered,  and  would  suffer  in  the  air,  and  places 
above,  for  the  salvation  of  demons. ":|:  Theophilus  complains 
that  he  would  save  even  "  the  Devil ";  and,  in  the  language 
of  the  prophet,§  calls  on  the  heavens  "  to  be  astonished,  and 
to  be  horribly  afraid,"  at  such  daring  impiety. 

But  let  us  consult  Origen  himself  In  his  tenth  Homily  on 
Luke,  he  says  expressly  that  the  advent  of  Christ  "  profited 
celestials  ";  ||  and,  in  support  of  the  assertion,  refers  to  Col.  i. 
20.  In  his  first  Homily  on  Leviticus,  he  speaks  of  a  "  double 
sacrifice  "  and  "  double  victim  ";  of  the  blood  of  Christ  sprin- 
kled on  the  earthly,  and  also  on  the  "  supernal "  altar ;  and 
he  asserts  explicitly,  that  he  was  "  offered  a  victim,  not  only 
for  terrestrial,  but  also  for  celestial  beings  ";  ^  and   more  to 

*  To  Origen's  general  principle,  that  the  souls  of  men  were  shut  up  in 
bodies  as  a  punishment  for  sins  committed  in  a  preexistent  state,  he  admits  a 
few  exceptions.  These  are  cases  of  men  of  distinguished  sanctity,  who  have 
lived  in  times  past,  and  whose  souls  were,  in  fact,  angels,  sent  on  an  extraor- 
dinary legation,  as  in  the  case  of  John,  to  testify  to  the  truth,  and  conduct 
men  to  virtue  and  happiness. 

t  Lib.  Pasch.,  ii. 

J  Apol.  adv.  Ruf.,  lib.  i. ;  and  Epist.  95,  al.  59,  ad  Avit. 

§  Jer.  ii.  12.  ||  0pp.,  iii.  943.  T  0pp.,  ii.  186. 


198  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS    THEOLOGY. 

the  same  purpose.  Again  :  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  he  says,  "  So  great  was  the  efficacy  of  Christ's 
cross  and  death,  that  it  was  sufficient,  not  only  for  the  human 
race,  but  for  celestial  powers  and  orders.  For,  according  to 
the  sentiment  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  Christ  pacificated,  by  the 
blood  of  his  cross,  not  only  "  things  in  earth,"  but  also  "  things 
in  heaven";*  that  is,  angels,  sun,  moon,  and  stars.  Again: 
"  He  is  the  great  High  Priest,  who  offered  himself,  not  only 
for  men,  but  also  for  every  being  partaking  of  reason  ;  he  died 
not  only  for  men,  but  likewise  for  other  rational  beings  ;  he 
tasted  death  for  every  creature  ;  for  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  he 
tasted  death  for  human  sins,  but  not  also  for  whatever  other 
beings,  besides  man,  have  committed  sin  ;  for  example,  for  the 
stars,  the  stars  not  being  pure  in  his  sight,  as  we  read  in  Job 
XXV.  5,  'Yea,  even  the  stars  are  not  pure  in  his  (God's)  sight'; 
unless,  perchance,  this  is  said  hyperbolically."f  Such,  accord- 
ing to  Origen,  was  the  extent  of  the  redemption  through 
Christ. 

It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  there  is  any  solid  founda- 
tion for  the  other  part  of  the  accusation  brought  against  him 
by  Theophilus,  Jerome,  and  others,  that  he  believed  that 
Christ  had  repeatedly  suffered,  or  would  suffer,  in  the  heavens 
and  in  the  air.  This  doctrine  is  not  expressly  taught  in  any 
of  his  writings  now  extant ;  and  the  contrary  seems  to  be 
often  implied.  True,  he  alludes  to  an  offering  in  the  heavens, 
but  apparently  speaks  of  it  as  accompanying  his  sacrifice  on 
earth,  and  not  as  an  act  to  be  repeated. 

With  regard  to  the  points  afterwards  agitated  during  the 
famous  Pelagian  controversy,  the  authority  of  Origen,  as  well 
as  that  of  all  preceding  Fathers,  could  be  adduced  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Augustinian  doctrines.  These  doctrines  seem  to 
have  been  regarded  as  a  novelty  at  the  time  ;  and  many  of 
those  who  condemned  the  opinions  of  Pelagius  were  not  pre- 
pared to  adopt,  in  fall  extent,  the  views  of  his  celebrated 
antagonist.  Origen  has  been  called  the  Father  of  Pelagian- 
ism  ;  and  certainly  the  germ  and  substance  of  the  Pelagian 
doctrines  are  found  in  his  writings. 

His  views  of  the  effects  of  Adam's  sin  were  censured  by 

♦  0pp.,  iv.  568.  t  Comm.  in  Joan.,  t.  i.  §  40  ;  0pp.,  iv.  41,  42. 


MORAL   FREEDOM   AND    ABILITY.  199 

the  orthodox  of  subsequent  ages,  but  were  apparently  in 
unison  with  the  opinions  of  the  Church  at  the  time  he  wrote. 
He  has  the  phrase,  "  sin  of  nativity ";  and  speaks  of  the 
"  simihtude  of  Adam's  transgression,  not  only  derived  from 
birth,  but  contracted'';  but  in  what  sense  he  understood  these 
and  similar  expressions,  is  matter  of  doubt ;  certainly  not  in 
the  modern.  He  had  no  notion  of  any  such  consequences 
attending  Adam's  transcrression  as  have  been  ascribed  to  it  in 
orthodox  systems,  from  the  time  of  Augustine  down  to  the 
present  day.  In  a  moi-al  view,  he  seems,  in  fact,  hardly  to 
attribute  anything  to  the  fall,  and,  in  his  general  reasoning, 
does  not  distinguish  between  what  is  called  a  "  state  of  fallen 
nature  "  and  a  state  of  primitive  integrity ;  at  least,  so  far  as 
the  sin  of  our  first  parents  is  concerned.  All  souls,  he  sup- 
posed, sinned  in  a  preexisting  state,  and  consequently  came 
into  the  world  under  certain  disadvantages ;  but  they  are  sub- 
jected to  these  disadvantages,  not  by  the  disobedience  of 
Adam,  but  by  the  guilt  contracted  by  our  abuse  of  liberty  in 
a  prior  state. 

Origen  allows  to  the  soul  in  its  fallen  state  the  most  perfect 
freedom  and  moral  ability ;  the  power  to  choose  and  pursue 
virtue,  and  reject  and  fly  from  sin  ;  and  this  power  is  retained 
by  demons,  and  even  the  Devil.  Good  as  well  as  evil  mo- 
tives originate  in  the  heart.  To  live  well  is  "  our  OAvn  work," 
the  result  of  our  own  volitions  and  efforts :  "  God  demands 
it  of  us,  not  as  his  work,  but  as  our  own."  And  he  goes  on 
to  show,  from  numerous  texts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
that  it  is  in  our  power  to  live  as  God  requires,  and  that  "  we 
are  the  cause  of  our  perdition  or  salvation."  He  then  pro- 
ceeds to  explain  certain  passages,  which,  it  seems,  were  ad- 
duced by  some  heretics  of  the  Oriental  or  Gnostic  sects  to 
establish  a  different  doctrine ;  and  these,  it  is  deserving  of 
notice,  are  precisely  those  which,  in  modern  times,  have  been 
brought  to  prove  that  our  goodness  is  the  work  of  God,  and 
not  of  ourselves ;  that  it  is  the  result  of  the  special  agency  of 
his  Spirit,  and  not  primarily  of  our  own  volitions.  On  all 
these  he  puts  a  construction  which  would  now  be  called  de- 
cidedly Arminian.  The  passages  referred  to  are  —  the  hard- 
sning  of  Pharaoh's  heart,  Exod.  iv.  21 ;    the  taking  away  a 


200  OEIGEN,    AND    HIS   THEOLOGY. 

heart  of  stone,  and  giving  a  heart  of  flesh,  Ezek.  xi.  19;  "It 
is  not  of  him  that  willeth  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God 
that  showeth  mercy,"  Rom.  ix.  16 ;  "  He  hath  mercy  on 
whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth," 
and  the  following  verses,  containing  the  illustration  of  the  pot- 
ter and  the  clay,  Rom.  ix.  18-23  ;  and  some  others.  All 
these  he  so  explains  as  to  leave  man  entire  freedom  and  abil- 
ity, moral  as  well  as  physical,  to  do  good  or  evil,  and  make  sin 
or  virtue  his  own  act.  He  attributes  to  God,  not  our  voli- 
tion, but  only  the  power  of  volition.  Thus,  in  explaining  the 
phrase,  "  To  will  and  to  do  is  of  God,"  as  he  quotes  Phil.  ii.  13, 
he  observes,  "  The  Apostle  does  not  say,  that  to  will  good  or 
evil,  and  to  do  better  or  worse,  are  of  God,  but  only  generally 
to  will  and  to  perform  ";  that  is,  the  power  to  will  and  to  per- 
form. He  draws  an  illustration  from  the  power  of  motion. 
That  we  are  capable  of  motion,  he  says,  is  of  God ;  but  the 
particular  direction  of  our  motions  depends  on  ourselves  ;  so 
"  we  receive  of  God  the  power  to  will ;  but  we  may  use  this 
power  for  good  or  for  evil,  as  also  the  power  to  perform."  * 

Origen  speaks  in  general  terms  of  the  necessity  of  divine 
grace  to  enable  us  to  attain  to  the  perfection  of  the  Christian 
character  ;  but  it  was  his  belief,  that  this  grace  is  granted  as 
the  reward  of  our  goodness,  that  it  is  in  no  sense  the  exciting 
cause,  and  that  the  measure  of  it  is  determined  by  the  exer- 
cise of  our  own  wills ;  that  is,  it  is  bestowed  in  proportion  to 
our  previous  merits,  and  not  by  an  arbitrary  act  of  God's 
sovereignty.  He  seems  afraid  almost  of  attributing  too  much 
to  God's  agency.  Holiness  originates  in  our  own  wills :  we 
must  sow  the  seeds ;  but,  the  plant  once  introduced,  God 
fosters  and  cherishes  it. 

God  thus  grants  the  assistance  of  his  Spirit,  as  Origen  sup- 
posed, in  proportion  to  our  merits,  and  in  consideration  of 
them.  But  in  our  merits  are  included  the  good  actions  done 
in  a  preexistent  state,  as  well  as  those  performed  in  the  pres- 
ent ;  so  that  God  may  make  a  distinction  between  one  and 
another,  bestowing  his  grace  on  one  and  withholding  it  from 
another,  loving  one  and  hating  another,  before  they  "have 

♦  De  Princip.,  lib.  iii.  c.  1,  De  Arbitrii  Libertate  ;   0pp.,  i.  108,  et  seqq 


NO   UNCONDITIONAL   ELECTION.  201 

done  good  or  evil,"  that  is,  in  the  present  life,  as  in  the  case 
of  Jacob  and  Esau  (Rom.  ix.  11—13).* 

Origan  admits  of  no  unconditional  election,  but  makes  pre- 
destination depend  altogether  on  our  works  foreseen. f  God 
is  said  to  make  "  one  vessel  to  honor,  and  another  to  dis- 
honor "  ;  but  the  cause,  says  Origen,  is  in  ourselves.  He  who 
purges  himself  from  impurity  is  made  a  vessel  of  honor ;  he 
who  suffers  himself  to  remain  polluted  with  sin  is  made  a 
vessel  of  dishonor.  "  Each  one  is  made  by  God  a  vessel  of 
honor  or  of  dishonor,  according  to  his- merits"  in  this  or  a  pre- 
existent  state.  "  It  is  just,"  he  adds,  "  and  in  every  respect 
agreeable  to  piety,  that  each  one  should  be  made  a  vessel  of 
honor  or  of  dishonor  from  preceding  causes  "  ;  and  these,  he 
insists,  are  our  merits,  our  actions.  These,  foreseen,  are  the 
ground,  and  the  only  ground,  of  predestination.  J 

*  De  Princip.,  lib.  iii.  c.  1 ;  also  lib.  i.  c.  7. 
t  Huet.  Orig.,  lib.  ii.  c.  ii.  qusest.  7. 

}  De  Princip.,  lib.  iii.  c.  1 ;  Comm.  in  Bom.,  lib.  i.  and  vii. ;  0pp.,  iv.  464,  604, 
S16. 


202  OKIGEN,   AND   HIS  THEOIiOGY. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Okigen's  Views  of  the  Future.  —  The  Resurrection.  —  Form  of  thk 
FUTURE  Body  round.  —  Bodies  of  the  Damned  black.  —  The  Final 
Consummation  will  be  the  Perfection  and  Happiness  of  all,  in- 
cluding Fallen  Spirits  of  Darkness.  —  Matter  to  become  spir- 
itualized.—  Variation  in  his  Opinions.  —  Perpetual  Lapses  and 
Returns.  —  Fate  of  the  Origenian  Doctrines.  —  Appealed  to  by 
the  Arians.  —  Condemned  a  Century  and  a  Half  after  Origen's 
Death.  —  Origenism  finds  Shelter  in  the  Monasteries.  —  Free- 
dom of  Theological  Speculation. 

We  have  treated  of  the  opinions  of  Origen  relating  to  the 
past  and  present  character  and  condition  of  rational  natures, 
and  especially  man.  We  now  turn  to  his  representation  of 
the  future. 

His  views  of  the  resurrection  have  been  a  subject  of  con- 
troversy. He  was  accused  by  several  subsequent  Fathers, 
and  by  Jerome  among  the  rest,  of  denying  it  in  reality,  and 
retaining  only  the  name.  And  if  by  the  resurrection  we  are 
to  understand  the  restoration  of  the  flesh  of  the  present  body 
in  substance  and  figure,  he  undoubtedly  did  deny  it ;  thinking 
with  St.  Paul,  that  "  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  king- 
dom of  God."  He  could,  in  consistency  with  himself,  enter- 
tain no  other  opinion ;  for,  according  to  his  system,  the  flesh 
is  the  prison-house  of  the  soul,  which  it  is  doomed  to  occupy 
for  the  punishment  of  its  sins.  All  spirits  become  clothed 
with  bodies  more  or  less  gross,  according  to  their  degree  of 
moral  pollution.  They  remain,  however,  in  a  state  of  disci- 
pline, and  may  be  restored.  When  they  shall  have  purified 
themselves  from  their  stains,  and  regained  their  pristine  beauty 
and  excellence,  they  will  drop  the  encumbrance  of  their  mate- 
rial or  fleshy  chains,  and  become  once  more  subtile  and  ethe- 
real. So  Origen  undoubtedly  thought.  The  souls  of  the 
faithful,  at  death,  will  part  forever  with  their  present  earthly 
and  corruptible  integuments.     The  body,  compacted  as  it  now 


THE   CONSUMMATION.  203 

is,  will  not  be  restored  :  it  will  rise,  but  other  and  different, 
more  pure  and  splendid.  The  present  is  but  the  germ  of  the 
future,  according  to  the  illustration  of  Paul,  who  says,  "It  is 
sown  a  natural  body ;  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body." 

With  regard  to  the  form  of  the  future  body,  it  has  been 
generally  inferred,  from  the  manner  in  which  Origen  has  ex- 
pressed himself  and  from  the  analogy  of  his  system,  that  he 
regarded  it  as  round.  Such  is  the  figure  esteemed  most  per- 
fect ;  such  that  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  —  those  more  glorious 
intelligences  ;  and  such,  as  he  seems  to  have  supposed,  will  be 
ours  ;  though  he  has  not,  we  believe,  directly  asserted  it  in 
any  of  his  writings  we  now  possess.  Certain  it  is,  that  his  fol- 
lowers professed  to  have  derived  the  doctrine  from  him ;  and 
it  was  prevalent  among  the  Origenian  monks  of  Palestine  in 
the  time  of  Justinian.* 

Origen  believed  in  the  final  restoration  of  all  beings  to  vir- 
tue and  happiness.  All  are  subjected  to  influences,  which, 
sooner  or  later,  will  prove  successful.  Superior  orders  of 
intelligences  are  appointed  to  instruct,  guide,  and  perfect  the 
lower.  Of  the  glorious  spirits  who  have  imitated  the  divine 
perfections,  some,  as  the  reward  of  their  merits,  are  placed  in 
the  "  order  of  angels  ;  others,  of  virtues ;  othei's,  of  princi- 
palities ;  others,  of  powers,  because  they  exercise  power  over 
those  who  require  to  be  in  subjection  ;  others,  of  thrones, 
exercising  the  office  of  judging  and  directing  those  who  have 
need."  To  the  care  and  rule  of  these  noble  orders  the  race 
of  man  is  subjected,  and,  using  their  assistance,  and  reformed 
by  their  salutary  instructions  and  discipline,  will,  in  some  future 
though  perhaps  distant  age,  be  restored  to  their  primitive  state 
of  felicity,  f 

The  sufferings  of  a  future  life,  as  Origen  taught,  are  all 
piacular  and  remedial.  We  shall  all,  he  says,  be  subjected 
to  trial  by  fire.  But  those  who  have  few  impurities  and  many 
virtues  will  escape  with  slight  pain ;  but  the  fire  will  take  hold 

*  Among  the  anathemas  subjoined  to  Justinian's  Epistle  to  Menas  already 
referred  to,  on  the  errors  of  Origen,  is  the  following  :  "  Whoever  says  oi 
thinks  that  men's  bodies  -will  be  raised  spherical,  and  not  erect,  let  him  be 
anathema."  —  ConciL,  t.  vi.  p.  353,  ed.  Coleti. 

t  De  Princip.,  lib.  i.  c.  6 ;  0pp.,  i.  69  ;   Jerome,  Epist.  94,  ad  Avitum. 


204  OEIGEN,    AND    HIS   THEOLOGY. 

of  the  wicked,  and  their  iniquities  will  be  burned,  and  their 
evil  affections  purged  away.  Some,  however,  in  consequence 
of  inveterate  habits  of  sin,  will  be  reserved  to  a  great  intensity 
and  long  continuance  of  suffering,  of  which  their  blackened 
bodies  will  be  witness.* 

So  he  sometimes  expresses  himself;  but  in  other  parts  of 
his  writings  he  is  careful  to  teach  us  that  this  and  similar  lan- 
guage is  altogether  metaphorical.  By  the  fire  which  shall  burn 
the  wicked,  he  tells  us,  is  meant  the  worm  of  conscience. 
The  evil  of  their  whole  lives  will,  by  an  act  of  Divine  power, 
be  vividly  presented  to  their  thoughts  ;  the  picture  of  all  the 
wrong  they  have  done  or  intended  will  be  spread  out  before 
their  eyes ;  forgotten  things  will  be  remembered ;  and  they 
will  have  a  horrible  consciousness  of  guilt.  This  is  the  flame 
by  which  they  are  to  be  tormented  ;  not  an  outward  and  ma- 
terial, but  an  inward  fire,  of  which  their  sins  furnish  the  fuel ; 
just  as  the  peccant  humors  of  the  body,  consequent  upon  ex- 
cess and  repletion,  furnish  the  fuel  of  fever.f  These  humors 
may  be  purged  away,  and  the  patient  restored,  after  a  season 
of  suffering.  Just  so  with  regard  to  the  impurities  of  sin 
which  occasion  so  much  anguish.  By  the  salutary  discipline 
of  suffering,  the  soul  may  and  will  be  cleansed  from  them. 
Such  is  its  design,  such  its  tendency,  and  such  will  be  its 
result.  All  will  be  chastised  exactly  in  proportion  to  their 
demerit ;  but  their  sufferings  will  have  an  end,  and  all  will 
be  finally  restored  to  purity  and  to  love.  This  Origen  re- 
peatedly asserts. 

The  end  and  consummation  of  all  things,  he  observes,  is  the 
perfection  and  happiness  of  all.  "  To  this  one  end,"  condi- 
tion, or  state,  he  says,  "  we  think  that  the  goodness  of  God, 
through  his  Christ,  will  recall  his  universal  creation  ;  all  things 
becoming  finally  subjected  to  Christ.  '  For  all  things  must  be 
subject  to  him.'  J  Now,  what  is  this  subjection,"  he  asks, 
"  with  which  all  things  must  be  subject  to  Christ  ?  I  think 
the  same  with  which  we  also  desire  to  be  subject  to  him ;  with 
which  the  Apostles,  and  all  the  saints  who  have  followed  Christ, 

*  In  Exod.,  Horn.  vi. ;  In  Ps.  xxxvi.,  Horn.  iii. ;  0pp.,  t.  ii. 

t  De  Priiidp.,  lib.  ii.  c.  10 ;  0pp.,  ii.  100 ;  Jerome,  Epist.  94,  ad  Avitum- 

}  1  Cor.  XV.  24-28. 


FINAL    RESTITUTION    OF    ALL    THINGS.  205 

are  subject  to  him.  For  the  very  term  '  subjection,'  in  this 
case,  imphes  that  they  who  are  subject  have  obtained  the 
salvation  which  is  of  Christ."  Then  it  is  that  "  Christ  him- 
self shall  also  be  subject  to  the  Father,  with  and  in  those  who 
have  been  made  subject."  This,  he  observes,  is  asserted  by 
the  Apostle,  when  he  says,  "And,  when  all  things  shall  be 
subdued  to  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subject 
unto  Him  that  put  all  things  under  him  ;  that  God  may  be  all 
in  all."  And  this  subjection  of  all  Christ's  enemies  to  himself, 
as  that  of  himself  to  the  Father,  Origen  contends,  "  is  a  good 
and  salutary"  subjection.  If  the  latter  is  such,  the  former  is 
so  too :  and  hence,  "  as,  when  it  is  said  the  Son  is  subject  to 
the  Father,  the  perfect  restitution  of  the  universal  creation 
is  declared ;  so,  when  the  enemies  of  the  Son  are  said  to  be 
subject  to  him,  the  salvation,  through  him,  of  those  subject, 
and  the  restitution  of  the  lost,  are  implied."  * 

Again :  in  his  seventh  Homily  on  Leviticus,  he  contends  that 
subjection  to  Christ  implies  subjection  of  the  will  and  affec- 
tions ;  and  that,  as  long  as  anything  remains  opposed  to  him, 
—  in  other  words,  as  long  as  there  is  sin,  —  his  work  is  not 
consummated.  "But,"  he  adds,  "when  he  shall  have  con- 
summated his  work,  and  brought  his  universal  creation  to  the 
summit  of  perfection,  then  he  himself  shall  be  subject  in  those 
whom  he  has  subdued  to  the  Father,  and  in  whom  he  has 
consummated  the  work  which  the  Father  gave  him  to  do ; 
that  God  may  be*  all  in  all."  f 

Such,  according  to  Origen,  will  be  the  end,  or  final  consum- 
mation, of  all  things.  His  train  of  reasoning  throughout,  as  it 
will  be  perceived,  implies  his  belief  of  the  final  restoration  and 
happiness,  not  merely  of  the  human  race,  but  of  all  rational 
natures,  including  demons  and  fallen  spirits  of  darkness ;  other- 
wise the  universal  creation  could  not  be  said  to  be  subjected 
and  made  perfect.  When,  in  connection  with  the  train  of 
reasoning  above  exhibited,  we  take  the  fact  before  stated,  that 
he  supposed  Christ  died  for  the  heavenly  hosts  and  for  de- 
mons, for  all  rational  beings  who  had  sinned,  we  cannot  doubt 
that  such  was  his  belief.  Such  it  was  understood  to  have  been 
in  the  time  of  Theophilus,  above  referred  to,  and  of  Jerome,  both 
*  De  Princip.,  lib.  i.  c.  6  j  lib.  iii.  c.  5.  t  0pp.,  ii.  222. 


206  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS   THEOLOGY, 

of  whom  made  it  one  of  the  capital  articles  in  the  catalogue 
of  his  heresies,  that  he  taught  that  "  the  Devil  "  would  be 
finally  saved.  In  fact,  there  are  passages  in  his  writings  which 
appear  expressly  to  inculcate  this  doctrine.  Thus  he  observes, 
"  The  last  enemy,  which  is  called  Death,  is  spoken  of  as  de- 
stroyed." By  death,  it  seems,  he  understood  the  Devil,  or 
"  him  that  had  the  power  of  death  "  (Heb.  ii.  14)  ;  and  he 
proceeds  to  explain  what  is  meant  by  his  destruction.  "  The 
last  enemy,"  he  says,  "  is  not  to  be  understood  as  so  destroyed, 
that  his  substance,  which  was  derived  from  God,  shall  perish  ; 
but  only  that  his  malignant  will  and  purpose,  which  proceeded 
not  from  God,  but  from  himself,  shall  cease  to  exist.  He  shall 
be  destroyed,  therefore,  not  so  that  he  shall  not  continue  to  be, 
but  so  that  he  shall  not  continue  to  be  an  enemy  and  death."  * 
Nothing  more  can  be  needed  to  show  that  a  belief  of  the  final 
restoration  of  all  fallen  beings  formed  part  of  the  creed  of  Ori- 
gen.f  The  more  deeply  fallen,  however,  will  be  subjected,  as 
he  taught,  to  protracted  and  severe  sufi^erings  ;  and  God  alone 
knows  their  termination.  But  all  will  mount,  step  by  step,  till 
they  attain  "  to  the  invisible  and  eternal  state,  some  in  the 
first,  some  in  the  second,  and  some  in  the  last  ages  ;  corrected 
and  reformed,  by  rigorous  discipline  and  very  great  and  griev- 
ous punishments,  by  the  instructions  of  angels,  and  afterwards 
by  superior  orders  of  intelligences." 

The  rewards  of  the  blessed  Origen  makes  to  consist  in  an 
intimate  union,  or  oneness,  with  God,  according  to  the  prayer 
of  Christ  (John  xvii.  21-24).  They  do  not,  however,  rise  to 
the  summit  of  this  felicity  at  once,  but  through  several  suc- 
cessive steps :  as,  first,  by  knowledge  and  instruction,  which 
remove  the  darkness  of  their  understandings  ;  then  by  being 
brought  into  a  moral  resemblance  to  God  ;  then  by  being  taken 
into  union  with  him,  in  which  consists  the  supreme  good. 
This  union  is  explained  as  a  union  of  affection,  will,  and  pur- 
pose. The  soul,  on  leaving  the  body,  is  first  conducted,  as 
he  tells  us,  to  a  part  of  the  earth  called  Paradise,  J  where  it 

*  De  Princip.,  lib.  iii.  c.  6.     See  also  lib.  i.  c.  6. 

t  See,  on  this  point,  the  letter  of  Jerome,  already  repeatedly  referred  to. 

X  It  is  curious  to  observe,  that  Origen,  while  he  places  Eden,  or  the  ter- 
restrial Paradise,  in  the  third  lieavens  (imagining  that  by  Adam  and  Eve 
dwelling  in  it  we  are  to  understand  souls  residing  in  heaven ;  and,  by  their 


PEEPETUAL  LAPSES  AND  KETURNS,  207 

remains  for  some  time,  enjoying  the  instruction  of  angels,  and 
gradually  depositing  its  earthly  concretions.  It  then  mounts 
into  the  air,  and  afterwards  into  various  regions  of  the  heav- 
ens, continuing  in  these  several  places,  under  different  mas- 
ters of  the  superior  orders  of  intelligences,  for  a  longer  or 
shorter  term,  according  to  the  degree  of  impurity  to  be  purged 
off,  till  by  vatious  progressions  it  reaches  the  invisible  and 
incorporeal  heavens,  where  God  resides  ;  where,  as  we  have 
said,  it  becomes  united  with  him  as  in  its  first  state  of  felicity 
and  love,  and  he  becomes  "  all  in  all,"  dwelling  in  all,  and  all 
in  him.  Matter  will  then  become  spiritualized,  and  be  reab- 
sorbed in  God,  from  whom  it  flowed.  Thus  all  ends  where  all 
began :  — 

"  From  thee,  great  God  !  we  spring  ;  to  thee  we  tend." 
Such  was  Origen's  great  system  ;  yet  he  occasionally  ex- 
presses views  which  appear  in  some  respects  to  militate  against 
it.  Thus  he  seems  to  say  that  there  will  be  perpetual  lapses 
and  returns  from  sin  to  holiness,  and  from  superior  orders  of 
beings  to  inferior,  and  the  reverse,  in  consequence  of  that 
moral  liberty  w^hich  all  will  retain,  and  which  they  may  for- 
ever use  or  abuse.  Thus  Peter  may,  at  some  future  time, 
become  a  Judas  ;  and  Judas,  a  Peter  :  Paul,  a  Caiaphas  ;  and 
Caiaphas,  Paul.  Men  may  become  angels  or  demons  ;  and 
angels  or  demons,  men.  Demons  and  angels  may  change 
characters  :  the  Devil  may  become  an  archangel ;  and  arch- 
angels, devils  ;  all  things  mingling  and  revolving  in  unceasing 
succession.  Upon  this  hypothesis,  there  can  be  no  fixed  con- 
dition either  of  happiness  or  suffering.  Neither  the  punishment 
of  the  damned  nor  the  joys  of  the  blessed  are  necessarily 
eternal.     All  beings  are  in  a  state  of  perpetual  progression  and 

expulsion,  the  exile  of  souls  doomed,  as  the  punishment  of  sin,  to  be  clothed 
with  bodies),  he  supposes  the  future  or  celestial  Paradise  to  be  situated  some- 
where on  the  earth.  "  I  think,"  says  he,  "  that  saints,  departing  this  life,  will 
remain  in  a  certain  part  of  the  earth,  called,  in  the  Scriptures,  Paradise,  as  in  a 
school  of  instruction."  The  same,  he  supposed,  was  intended  by  "Abraham's 
bosom."  Here  all  which  they  have  witnessed  on  earth  is  to  be  explained  to 
them  ;  and  they  are  to  receive  revelations  of  the  future,  not  now  permitted. 
This  place  the  more  pure  will  soon  leave,  and  mount  through  various  man- 
sions, called,  by  the  Greeks,  spheres ;  but  in  the  Scriptures,  heavens  {De 
Princip.,  lib.  ii.  c.  11,  §6). 


208  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS   THEOLOGY. 

retrogression.  The  material  universe  will  undergo  correspond- 
ing changes.  There  was  a  succession  of  worlds  before  the 
present,  and  will  be  a  succession  after  it ;  the  new  springing 
from  the  old,  as  the  bird  of  fable  from  the  ashes  of  its  sire. 
Souls  will  fall  into  sin,  and,  for  their  punishment,  must  be 
again  imprisoned  in  gross  bodies  ;  and  this  will  always  ci'eate 
a  necessity  for  the  existence  of  matter,  which  will  be  absorbed 
and  produced,  reabsorbed  and  reproduced,  in  successive  and 
never-ending  periods.*  It  may  well  be  doubted,  however, 
whether  such  was  Origen's  fixed  opinion.  On  many  points,  he 
is  uncertain  and  vacillating  ;  but  with  regard  to  the  final  res- 
toration of  all  beings  to  a  union  with  the  fountain  of  Divinity, 
when  Christ  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  the  Father,  and 
God  shall  be  all  in  all,  he  is  clear  and  express.  He  often 
recurs  to  the  topic,  and  his  views  on  the  subject  are  fully  un- 
folded. We  may  be  pardoned  if  we  hesitate  to  admit,  upon 
the  evidence  of  a  few  slight  expressions,  his  belief  of  a  doctrine, 
which,  in  opposition  to  the  general  tenor  of  his  reasonings, 
teaches  that  sin  shall  never  be  abolished,  and  the  time  will 
never  come  when  "  all  things  shall  be  subdued  to  the  Son," 
and  all  shall  be  "  of  one  heart  and  of  one  mind."  It  would  be 
no  easy  task,  however,  to  defend  Origen  against  the  charge  of 
inconsistency  and  self-conti"adiction.  It  was  his  fate  to  lose 
himself  in  the  mazes  of  a  wild  and  wandering  philosophy. 
How  thoroughly  he  had  imbibed  its  spirit,  the  foregoing  sum- 
mary of  his  opinions  abundantly  shows.  We  mean  not  to  be 
his  apologist.  Our  aim  has  been  to  be  simply  the  historian  of 
his  opinions,  not  to  combat  or  defend  them. 

The  fate  of  the  Origenian  doctrines,  after  the  brilliant  but 
erratic  spirit  which  had  contributed  to  give  them  currency  had 
been  withdrawn  from  the  earth,  is  exceedingly  interesting. 
The  storm  raised  against  him  during  his  life,  as  has  been 
already  shown,  had,  in  reality,  no  reference  whatever  to  doc- 
trine ;  nor  have  we  any  evidence  that  his  orthodoxy  was 
formally  impugned  until  long   after   his  death. f      The    first 

*  De  Princip.,  lib.  i.  c.  6  ;  also  Jerome,  Epist.  94,  ad  Avitum. 

t  We  are  aware  that  Eusebius  (Hist.,  vi.  36)  alludes  to  a  letter  written  by 
Origen  to  Fabian,  Bishop  of  Rome,  "  concerning  his  own  orthodoxy  " ;  which 
would  seem  to  imply  that  it  was,  by  some,  drawn  into  suspicion  ;  but  on  what 


FATE    OP   THE   ORIGENIAN   DOCTRINES.  209 

writer  who  ventured  to  censure  the  doctrines  of  Origen  after 
his  decease,  as  we  are  informed  by  Socrates  the  historian,*  wa3 
Methodius,  Bishop  of  Olympus  in  Lycia,  afterwards  of  Tyre, 
who  died  early  in  the  fourth  century,  fifty  years  after  Origen 
left  the  world.  He  wrote  a  book  on  the  Resurrection,  against 
Origen  ;  and  another,  says  Jerome, f  on  "  the  Pythoness  " 
(1  Sam.  xxviii.).  The  attack  on  Origen,  however,  seems  to 
have  been  deemed  a  rash  one.  Origen's  writings  were  now 
held  in  unbounded  admiration,  and  Methodius  found  it  con- 
venient to  recant. 

Origen's  reputation  for  orthodoxy  contmued  unsullied  till 
the  celebrated  Arian  controversy  broke  out ;  when  he  was 
claimed  by  both  parties,  though  his  opinions  coincided  with  ^ 
neither.  The  Arians  could  of  right  claim  him,  as  asserting 
that  the  Son  was  inferior  to  the  Father,  but  not  as  affirming 
that  he  was  made  out  of  nothing,  which  was  their  distinguish- 
ing dogma.  The  Athanasians  could  claim  him,  as  asserting, 
with  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers  generally,  that  he  had  an  exist- 
ence from  eternity,  not  with,  but  in,  the  Father  ;  not  as  a  real 
being  or  person,  but  an  attribute.  On  the  whole,  the  orthodox 
had,  at  this  time,  receded  ftirther  from  the  views  of  Origen,  if 
not  in  letter,  at  least  in  spirit,  than  the  Arians.  The  former, 
however,  regarded  him  as  too  important  an  ally  to  be  sur- 
rendered. They  continued  to  defend  him  as  long  as  with 
decency  they  could ;  and  even  Athanasius  quotes  him  with 
approbation.  From  this  time,  however,  Origen  had  a  strong 
party  against  him ;  though  his  friends  and  admirers  were  yet 
numerous,  and  many  of  them  among  the  most  learned  and  ac- 
complished writers  of  the  age.  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus,  with 
a  tender  regard  for  his  memory,  composed  an  Apology  for  him, 

points,  we  are  not  told.  The  matter  appears  to  have  produced  no  excitement  • 
if  so,  it  was  soon  allayed.  Among  the  charges  brought  against  him  by  his 
enemies  at  Alexandria,  in  consequence  of  which  he  was  deposed  and  banished, 
not  one  related  to  doctrine ;  which  is  sufficient  evidence  that  he  was  not  re- 
garded as  deviating,  in  any  essential  particular,  from  the  popular  faith. 

*  Eccles.  Hist.,  lib.  vi.  c.  13. 

t  De  Vir.  Illust.  Jerome  also  mentions  a  treatise  of  Methodius  on  "  Fre* 
Will."  This,  it  seems,  was  written  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue  between  a  Val- 
entinian  and  a  Catholic,  and  was  designed  to  prove  that  evil  arises  from  abuse 
of  liberty  in  free  agents  ;  which  was  also  the  doctrine  of  Origen. 

14 


210  OEIGEN,    AND    HIS  THEOLOGY. 

in  six  books ;  and  his  writings  were  collected  and  deposited  in 
the  library  at  Ciesarea.* 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  soundness  of  Origen's  opinions  on 
the  subject  of  the  Trinity  first  began  to  be  called  in  question 
after  the  rise  of  Arianism.  But  the  defection  from  him  was 
by  no  means  general  even  then.  The  majority,  even,  of  the 
orthodox,  were  still  friendly  to  his  memory.  Socrates,  it  is 
curious  to  observe,  after  mentioning  some  authors  who  had 
written  against  him  down  to  the  close  of  the  fourth  century, 
says,  that  though  they  collected  whatever  they  supposed  blame- 
worthy in  Origen,  —  some  mentioning  one  thing,  and  some 
another,  —  yet  they  found  no  fault  with  him  on  the  subject  of 
the  Trinity.f  This  assertion  is  made  without  any  qualifying 
phrase  whatever.  From  the  days  of  Arius,  we  know,  down  to 
the  time  of  Theophilus  the  Alexandrian,  and  Epiphanius,  near 
the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  the  adherents  and  friends  of 
Origen  formed  a  very  large  proportion  of  Christians.  Another 
tempest  then  arose,  more  violent  than  the  former.  The  monks 
of  Egypt  and  Palestine  were  at  this  time  decided  Origenists. 
Theophilus,  having  embroiled  himself  in  a  dispute  with  some 
of  the  former,  who  inhabited  the  monasteries  of  Nitria,  as- 
sembled a  Provincial  Synod  at  Alexandria,  about  the  year 
400  ;  in  which  —  to  gratify,  as  it  would  seem,  a  passion  of 
revenge  or  hatred — he  caused  the  writings  of  their  favorite, 
Origen,  to  be  condemned  a  century  and  a  half  after  his  death. 
This  is  the  first  time  sentence  of  condemnation  was  pronounced 
against  the  errors  of  Origen  by  a  synod.     Theophilus,  who  had 

*  In  this  Apology,  nine  charges  are  mentioned  as  brought  against  him  by 
his  enemies.  Some  of  them,  however,  are  evidently  unfounded  ;  and  a  part 
inconsistent  with  the  rest.  He  was  accused  of  saying  that  "  the  Son  of  God 
was  not  begotten  "  ;  of  retailing  the  fabulous  opinions  of  Valentinus  concern- 
ing his  birth ;  of  maintaining,  with  Artemon  and  Paul  of  Samosata,  that  he 
was  a  mere  man  ;  of  saying  that  the  account  of  him  given  by  the  evangelists 
is  a  mere  allegory,  and  not  a  history  of  events  that  actually  occurred  ;  of  as- 
serting that  there  were  two  Christs;  of  allegorizing,  generally,  the  lives  of  the 
saints  recorded  in  the  Scriptures;  of  holding  some  unsound  opinions  concern- 
ing the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  denying  that  sinners  will  be  punished; 
of  entertaining  erroneous  views  of  the  state  of  the  soul ;  and,  lastly,  of  main- 
taining that  human  souls  will  hereafter  pass  into  the  bodies  of  beasts,  fishes, 
and  serpents. 

t  Eccles.  Hist.,  lib.  vi.  c.  13. 


HIS    ASSAILANTS    AND    DEFENDERS.  211 

a  talent  for  intrigue,  immediately  wrote  to  the  bishops  generally, 
and  to  Epiphanius,  Bishop  of  Cyprus,  in  particular,  urging  him 
to  the  same  step.  Tiie  latter,  duped  by  the  arts  of  the  wily 
Egyptian,  called  a  council  of  the  Cyprian  bishops,  who  pro- 
ceeded to  pass  sentence  of  condemnation  both  on  Origen  and 
his  writings.  This  controversy,  which  was  long  and  fierce, 
involved  John,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  John  Chrysostom  of 
Constantinople,  both  favorers  of  Origen ;  also  Rufinus  and 
Jerome,  who  were  soon  engaged  in  terrific  battle.  In  fact, 
the  whole  East  and  West  were  now  shaken  with  tremendous 
commotions.*  Theophilus  boasts  that  he  had  "  truncated  the 
serpents  of  Origen  with  the  evangelic  sword."  Epiphanius 
adds,  "  Amalek  is  destroyed,"  and  boasts  that  he  will  sweep 
the  heresy  of  Origen  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  Jerome 
swells  the  note  of  triumph.  "  Where  now,"  he  asks,  "  is  the 
crooked  serpent  ?  where  the  venomous  vipers  ?  " 

We  may  give,  as  a  specimen  of  the  hate  engendered  by  this 
controversy,  the  parting  words  which  passed  between  John 
Chrysostom  of  Constantinople,  and  Epiphanius,  when  the  latter, 
after  a  violent  altercation,  was  about  to  leave  Constantinople 
for  Cyprus.  "  May  you  not  die  a  bishop  !  "  says  Epiphanius 
to  John.  "  May  you  never  live  to  reach  home  !  "  retorts  the 
golden-mouthed  John.  The  wishes  of  both  were  granted. 
Chrysostom  was  soon  after  deposed,  and  died  in  exile,  a.  d. 
407 ;  t  and  Epiphanius,  having  embarked  for  Cyprus,  died 
on  the  passage,  A.  d.  403.  Theophilus,  who  had  rendered 
himself  odious  by  the  indulgence  of  his  violent  and  revengeful 
passions,  died  a.  d.  412.  On  his  death-bed,  as  tradition 
says,  he  expressed  great  remorse ;  and  the  ghost  of  the  in- 
jured Chrysostom,  whose  downfall  had  been  procured  chiefly 

*  See  Jerome,  Epist.  38,  al.  61,  ad  Pammach. ;  also  Epist.  39,  al.  62,  ad 
Theoph.,  with  other  letters  of  Jerome  to  Theophilus,  and  of  Theophilus  and 
Epiphanius  to  Jerome.  Jerome,  0pp.,  t.  iv.,  ed.  Par.  1706.  Socrates,  Eccles. 
Hist.,  lib.  vi.  c.  10  ;  Huet.  Oric/.,  lib.  ii.  c.  iv. 

t  He  was  finally  banished  to  a  place  called  Pityus,  "  on  the  northeast  coast 
of  the  Black  Sea,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Caucasus,  in  a  desolate  region  at  the 
extreme  limits  of  the  Roman  Empire."  He  did  not  live  to  reach  the  place  of 
his  exile,  but,  worn  out  with  toil  and  suffering,  he  died  on  his  journey;  at  the 
age  of  60. — Life,  by  Perthes. 


212  ORIGEN,    AND    HIS   THEOLOGY. 

by  his  machinations,  standing  at  his  pillow,  shook  his  soul  with 
terror. 

Though  Origenism  had  now  received  some  'heavy  blows,  it 
yet  gave  symptoms  of  life.  The  publication  of  a  translation  of 
Origen's  book  "  Of  Principles,"  at  Rome,  by  Rufinus,  had 
been  the  occasion  of  awakening  the  spirit  of  Pelagius,  whose 
doctrines  were,  in  fact,  only  a  certain  modification  of  Origen- 
ism. Anastasius,  however,  the  first  pope  of  the  name,  had 
condemned  Rufinus  for  heresy,  and  passed  sentence  against 
Origen  and  his  writings  ;  and  the  friends  of  his  name  and 
doctrines  had  certainly  some  reason  to  indulge  desponding 
anticipations. 

This  explosion  past,  a  long  period  of  comparative  quiet  fol- 
lowed. Meantime,  Origenism  found  shelter  in  the  monasteries 
of  Palestine  ;  where,  a  little  more  than  a  century  after,  it  con- 
tinued to  prevail  to  an  alarming  extent.  Complaints  were 
made  to  the  Emperor  Justinian,  who  caused  sentence  of 
anathema  to  be  pi'onounced  against  Origen  by  several  bishops 
(among  whom  were  Menas,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  ;  Eph- 
rem  of  Antioch  ;  Peter,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  Vigilius  of 
Rome),  about  the  year  538.  This  sentence  was  confirmed 
by  the  fifth  General  Council,  holden  at  Constantinople,  a.  d. 
553  ;  *  and  again,  by  the  sixth,  holden  also  at  Constantinople, 
A.  D.  680.  The  acts  of  this  council  were  confirmed  by  Pope 
Leo  II.,  A.  D.  683 ;  and  thus  Origen  was  formally  placed  in 
the  rank  of  heretics.  His  works  are  still,  however,  per- 
mitted to  be  perused  by  Catholics,  with  a  Caute  lege,  in  the 
margin,  against  the  offensive  passages,  to  put  the  reader  on 
his   guard. 

Oi'igen  was  the  great  head  of  the  liberal  school  of  theology 
of  his  day,  and  he  left  the  authority  of  his  name  and  example 
a  valuable  heritage  to  after  ages.  Alluding  to  the  disputes 
which  rent  the  church  at  a  subsequent  period,  Gieseler  f  says 
that  "  to  the  wide-extended  influence  of  his  writings  it  is  to  be 
attributed,  that,  in  the   midst  of  these  furious  controversies, 

*  See  Evagrius,  Ecdes.  Hist.,  lib.  iv.  c.  38 ;  and  Valesius's  note.     Huet 
Orig.,  lib.  ii.  c.  iv.  §  3. 
t  Ecdes.  Hist.,  vol.  1.,  p.  207,  ed.  Phil.  1886. 


WIDE    INFLUENCE    OF    HIS    WRITINGS.  213 

there  remained  any  freedom  of  theological  speculation  what- 
ever." 

Bunsen  expresses  himself  quite  as  strongly.  "  Origen's 
death,"  says  he,  "  is  the  real  end  of  free  Christianity,  and,  in 
particular,  of  free,  intellectual  theology."  * 

*  Christianity  and  Mankind,  i.  286. 


WRITERS  SUBSEQUENT  TO  THE  TIME  OF  ORIGEN 

AND  BEFORE  THE  RISE  OF  THE  ARIAN 

CONTROVERSY. 


CHAPTER   I. 

Sabellids  and  Sabellianism.  —  Paul  of  Samosata.  —  The  Scholars  of 

OrIGEN.  DiONYSIUS    OF    ALEXANDRIA.  ACCUSED    OF    HETERODOXY. 

—  Extracts.  —  The  Term  "  Consubstantial." — Gregory  Thauma- 
TURGUS. —  Depresses  the  Son  to  the  Rank  of  a  Creature  or 
Work.  —  Theognostus.  —  Quoted.  —  Pierius.  —  Photius's  Report 
OF  HIS  Opinions.  —  Methodius.  —  His  Language  savors  of  Arian- 
ISM.  —  LuciAN.  —  His  Learning  and  Merits.  —  His  Opinions. — Most 
OF  THE  Arian  Chiefs  were  of  his  School. 

Sabellius. 

We  have,  in  the  preceding  pages,  traced  the  doctrine  of  the 
separate  being  and  inferiority  of  the  Son,  from  Justin  Martyr 
down  to  Origen.  There  was  now,  on  the  one  side,  something 
which  was  thought,  at  least,  to  savor  of  Tritheism,  and  on 
the  other,  as  we  have  seen,  a  strict  Monarchianism,  which,  by 
its  mode  of  defending  the  unity  of  God,  subjected  itself  to  the 
charge  of  Patripassianism,  and  to  the  denial  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  by  maintaining  that  the  Logos  as  a  separate  subsistence 
formed  no  part  of  his  nature.  "  Origen,"  says  Hagenbach,* 
"  carried  to  such  an  extreme  his  system  of  hypostases,  includ- 
ing the  subordination  scheme,  that  orthodoxy  itself  threatened 
to  run  over  into  heterodoxy,  and  thus  gave  rise  to  the  Arian 
controversy,  in  the  following  period."  Thus  it  was  the  Ortho- 
dox Fathers  themselves  who  opened  the  way  to  Arianism. 
Sabellianism,  and  the  kindred  beliefs  of  Praxeas,  Noetus, 
Beryllus,  and  the  rest,  pointed  in  the  opposite  direction. 
*  Text-Book,  etc.,  First  Period,  §  46. 


SABELLIUS.  215 

Tintlieism  and  Sabelllanism  were  the  Scylla  and  Charybdis  of 
the  Fathers. 

We  will  treat  further  of  the  orthodoxy  of  the  age  presently ; 
but  we  must  first  say  a  few  words  of  Sabellius  and  Paul  of 
Samosata,  two  eminent  teachers  of  the  Monarchian  party,  who 
flourished  about  the  time  of  Origen's  death,  or  a  little  later. 

Neander  pronounces  Sabellius  the  "  most  original  and  acute 
thinker  among  the  Monarchians."  He  was  of  Ptolemais  in 
Pentapolis,  in  Egypt ;  at  least  it  is  asserted  by  Eusebius  that 
his  opinions  were  first  propagated  there.  This  was  a  little 
after  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  —  about  a.  d.  255—257, 
as  the  date  is  generally  computed  by  critics.  His  doctrine  was 
a  protest  against  the  orthodoxy  of  the  age,  Sabellianism  is 
generally  described  as  a  trinity  of  attributes,  names,  or  mani- 
festations. God  exists  in  one  hypostasis  or  person,  but  in  three 
relations :  first,  as  manifest  in  creation,  and  the  giving  of  the 
law ;  secondly,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  thirdly,  in 
a  purifying  and  elevating  influence,  called  the  Holy  Spirit. 
These  are  not  three  "  self-subsistent  personalities,  but  only 
three  different  characters  —  forms  of  revelation  in  which  the 
Divine  Being  presents  himself." 

The  Saviour  was  the  immediate  manifestation  of  God.  The 
Logos,  or  Power  of  God,  was  hypostatized  in  him  during  his 
abode  on  earth,  but  the  personality  was  not  permanent ;  it 
was  transient  only.  It  "  neither  existed  previously  to  his  in- 
carnation, nor  does  it  continue  to  exist  in  heaven,  since  that 
divine  ray  which  beamed  forth  in  Christ  returns  again  to 
God."  But  whether  Sabellius  made  it  return  at  the  ascension 
of  Christ,  or  only  after  the  Kingdom  of  God  should  be  com- 
pleted, is  not  certain.  The  denying  the  permanent  self-sub- 
sistence of  the  Logos  in  Jesus  Christ  was  the  great  point  on 
which  Sabellius  differed  essentially  from  the  Orthodox  Plato- 
nizing  Fathers.  The  Power  of  God,  or  Logos,  at  the  appointed 
time,  according  to  Sabellius,  united  itself  with  the  man  Jesus 
wrought  in  him  as  in  no  other  man,  made  him  sufficient  foi 
his  great  work,  and  left  him  when  that  work  was  accomplished. 
The  Platonizing  Fathers  believed  in  the  permanently  self-sub- 
sisting Logos  of  God  in  Christ.  In  common  with  most  of 
those  who  had  spoken  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  distinguished 


216  WKITERS    BETWEEN    ORIGEN    AND    ARIUS. 

it  from  the  Logos,  Sabellius  appears  to  have  regarded  it  simply 
as  the  power  of  God. 

SabelHus's  doctrine  of  the  Logos  as  a  power  occasion-ally 
manifested,  (leaping  out  from  God  and  then  drawn  back  and 
reabsorbed,)  but  having  no  separate,  abiding  personality,  was 
not  new.  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  men- 
tions a  similar  opinion  as  held  by  some  in  his  day.*  There 
seems  to  have  been  something  congenial  with  the  minds  of  the 
age  in  the  Sabellian  views.  They  rapidly  spread,  not  only  in 
Egypt,  the  land  of  their  birth,  so  that,  as  Athanasius  says,  in 
Pentapolis  in  Upper  Libya,  the  Son  of  God  was  "  scarcely  any 
longer  preached  in  the  churches,"  f  that  is,  in  the  Orthodox 
sense.  Sabellianism  pervaded  far  -  off  regions,  and  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries  the  Fathei's  are  still  found  contend- 
ing against  it.  J  Yet  a  "  sect  of  Sabellians,  properly  so  called," 
says  Hagenbach,  "  did  not  exist." 

The  Sabellianism  of  antiquity  has  been  the  belief  of  mul- 
titudes within  the  pale  of  Orthodox  churches,  in  modern 
times.  Milman,  the  historian,  says,  "  a  more  modest  and  un- 
offending Sabellianism  might  perhaps  be  imagined  in  accord- 
ance with  modern  philosophy."  § 

'  Paul  of  Samosata. 

Paul  of  Samosata  appeared  a  little  later.  He  enjoyed  the 
fiiendship  of  Zenobia,  the  celebrated  queen  of  Palmyra,  and 
became  Bishop  of  Antioch  in  260.  Of  the  various  complaints 
against  him  our  purpose  does  not  require  us  to  speak.  We 
are  concerned  only  with  his  opinions  as  a  Monarchian.  In  his 
main  principle  it  is  often  said  that  he  differed  but  little  from 
Sabellius.  But  Neander  thinks  that  he  more  nearly  resem- 
bled Artemon,  with  whom  he  is  frequently  compared  by  the 
ancient  writers.  He  held  that  there  was  in  the  divine  nature 
only  one  hypostasis,  or  person ;  that  Christ  was  man  by 
nature,  yet  was  higher  than  other  men,  as  conceived  by  the 

*  Cap.  128,  Otto.  t  De  Sentent.  Dionysii,  c.  5. 

X  Euseb.  Hist.,  vii.  6 ;  Epiphanius,  Hcer.,  Ixii. ;  Neander,  Hist,  of  Christ. 
Dogmas,  pp.  164-168 ;  Martini,  Versuck,  etc.,  pp.  188-198 ;  Hagenbach,  Text 
Book,  etc.,  Second  Period,  §  88. 

§  Hist,  of  Christianity,  p.  312 ;  ed.  New  York,  1841. 


PAUL    OF    SAMOSATA.  217 

Holy  Spirit.  He  first  began  to  exist  when  born  of  Mary 
The  divine  Logos  united  itself  with  him  and  dwelt  in  him  as 
in  no  other  ever  sent  of  God,  but  did  not,  properly  speaking, 
incarnate  itself  in  him ;  it  had  in  him  no  personal  subsistence. 
The  divine  Reason  itself,  the  Wisdom  or  Power  of  God,  re- 
vealed itself  in  him  as  it  had  never  revealed  itself  in  any  other 
prophet.  So  great  was  the  illumination  he  hence  received, 
and  so  was  his  nature  exalted  by  means  of  it,  that  he  could 
with  propriety  be  called  the  Son  of  God. 

There  existed  great  bitterness  of  feeling  against  Paul,  for 
he  had  personal  qualities  which  were  very  offensive.  The 
bishops  fi'om  furthest  Egypt  and  Pontus  combined  to  crush 
him ;  council  after  council  was  held,  and  he  was  finally  con- 
demned and  deposed  between  269  and  272.  The  same  Synod 
of  Antioch  which  deposed  and  excommunicated  him,  it  is 
worthy  of  note,  rejected  the  term  Jiomoousios,  "  consubstan- 
tial,"  which,  after  the  Council  of  Nice,  became  the  very  Shib- 
boleth of  orthodoxy. 

Little  more  was  now  for  a  time  heard  of  these  opinions. 
The  pendulum  was  swinging  in  an  opposite  direction.  In  an- 
tagonism to  Sabellian  and  kindred  views,  the  doctrine  of  the 
self-subsisting  personality  of  the  Logos,  or  Son,  was  more 
strenuously  insisted  on  than  ever.  Soon  Arianism  came, 
strongly  contrasting  with  the  Monarchianism  of  Sabellius  and 
Paul.*  Of  this  we  will  proceed  to  treat ;  but  we  must  first 
glance  for  a  moment  at  the  scholars  of  Origen,  now  dispersed 
over  various  regions,  and  inquire  what  they  are  teaching.  •  It 
is  remarkable  that  no  one  of  them  has  adopted  his  peculiar 
views  of  the  "  eternal  generation  "  of  the  Son.  There  is,  we 
believe,  no  instance  of  this  found  among  his  followers.  In 
other  respects  they  hold  his  views  of  the  Logos,  or  Son,  as  the 
Reason  of  God,  which,  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  was 
begotten,  or  converted  into  a  self-subsistent  being  subordinate 
to  the  Father,  and  his  instrument  in  creating  and  governing 
the  world. 

*  Epiphan.  Hcbt.,  Ixv. ;  Euseb.  Hist.,  vii.  27-30 ;  Martini,  Versuch,  etc., 
Dp.  209-225;  Neander,  Hist.  Christ.  Dogm.,  pp.  169, 170,  and  Hist.  Christ.  Rdig., 
I.  601-605 ;  Hagenbach,  Text-Book,  etc.,  Second  Period,  §  88. 


218  WRITERS    BETWEEN    ORIGEN    AND    ARIUS. 

DioNYSius  OF  Alexandria. 

One  of  these  was  Dionysius  of  Alexandria.  He  was  of 
Pagan  extraction,  became  a  student  of  philosophy,  and  after- 
wards, probably  through  the  influence  of  Origen,  went  over  to 
Christianity.  About  the  year  232,  he  succeeded  Heraclas  in 
the  chair  of  the  theological  school,  and  on  his  death,  a.  d.  ^4T, 
ascended  the  Episcopal  throne  of  Alexandria.  He  took  an 
active  part  in  the  theological  discussions  and  disputes  ot  the 
day,  and  by  his  rank  and  merits  obtained  the  name  of  "  Great." 
He  embarked  with  his  characteristic  ardor  in  the  Sabellian 
controversy,  which  nearly  proved  his  ruin,  for  it  left  him  with 
his  reputation  for  orthodoxy  blighted.  Some  African  bishops 
loudly  complained  of  him  to  his  namesake  at  Rome,  for  saying 
that  the  Son  was  a  "  work,  and  was  not  consubstantial  with  the 
Father,"  and  he  had  great  trouble  in  purging  his  name  from 
the  taint  of  heresy.*  He  "  sowed  the  seeds,"  we  are  told, 
"  of  the  AnomoBan  impiety";  the  Anomoeans  being  a  branch 
of  the  Arians.  Basil  charges  him  with  placing  the  Son  in  the 
rank  of  a  "  creature,"  —  in  repelling  the  errors  of  Sabellius 
going  into  the  opposite  extreme  ;  making  not  only  a  "  diver- 
sity of  persons,"  but  a  "  difference  of  substance. "f 

The  charge  seems  to  have  been  but  too  well  founded.  Dio- 
nysius  wrote  many  letters  and  some  treatises  on  theological 
subjects,  most  of  which  have  perished.  But  some  of  his  let- 
ters, or  parts  of  them,  have  been  preserved  by  Eusebius,  who 
from  them  composed  the  greater  part  of  the  Seventh  Book  of 
his  Histoiy,  observing  that  Dionysius  '■'  particularly  relates  all 
the  actions  of  his  own  times,  in  the  epistles  which  he  has  left 
to  posterity."  J  Fragments  of  his  letters,  too.  are  found  in 
the  writings  of  Athanasius.  These  fragments  afford  unexcep- 
tionable evidence  of  his  opinions,  as  they  give  his  own  lan- 
guage. We  will  present  one  or  two  extracts.  A  letter  which 
he  wrote  to  Ammonius  and  Euphranor  furnished  the  Arians 
with  the  following  passage  well  suited  to  their  purpose.  He 
said  that  the  "  Son  of  God  is  something  made  and  begotten ; 

*  Athan.  De  Syn.  Arim.  et  Seleuc,  cc.  43,  44 ;  et  De  Syn.  Nic.  Decret.,  c.  26. 
t  Episf.  9,  210,  ed.  Par.  1839. 
$  See  also  vi.  35,  40-45. 


DIONYSIUS    OF    ALEXANDEIA.  219 

neither  is  lie  by  nature  (a  son)  proper ;  but  is  in  substance 
foreign  to  tlie  Father,  as  is  the  husbandman  to  the  vine,  or  the 
shipbuilder  to  the  ship  ;  and  being  a  creature,  he  was  not  be- 
fore he  was  begotten."  *  There  is  no  doubt  these  were  the 
words  of  Dionysius.  They  are  given  as  such  by  Athanasius, 
who  was  friendly  to  his  memory  and  his  apologist,  and  who 
wrote  a  treatise  on  his  sentiments  which  is  still  extant. 

Again,  fi'om  the  same  work  of  Athanasius,  it  appears  that 
Dionysius  was  charged  with  holding  that  "  God  was  not  always 
Father ;  the  Son  was  not  always ;  but  God  was  without  the 
Logos ;  and  the  Son  was  not  before  he  was  begotten ;  but  there 
was  a  time  when  he  was  not,  for  he  is  not  eternal,  but  was  after- 
wards begotten."  f  This  is  what  he  was  accused  of  saying. 
He  complains  afterwards  that  he  was  not  fairly  dealt  with,  — 
that  his  words  were  taken  out  of  their  connection,  and  that 
his  expressions  are  marred  in  the  quotation.  Whether  this 
was  so  or  not,  he  had  in  his  former  writings  against  the  Sabel- 
lians,  it  seems,  laid  himself  open  to  the  charge  of  so  teaching. 
Subsequently,  according  to  Athanasius,  he  explained  and  re- 
canted, and  took  a  more  orthodox  view  of  the  subject.  This 
is  not  doubted.  The  question  is,  what  he  said  in  his  earlier 
days,  when  writing  against  the  Sabellians,  not  what  he  asserted 
afterwards,  when  it  became  necessary  for  him  to  defend  him- 
self against  the  charge  of  heresy.  Athanasius  does  not  deny 
that  the  words  above  quoted  were  used  by  him  ;  he  only  gives 
his  explanation  or  apology. 

Little  needs  be  added.  As  to  the  term  "  consubstantial," 
Dionysius  says  that  he  "  did  not  find  it  in  the  Scriptures,"  and 
he  therefore  felt  justified  in  rejecting  it.  J     Dionysius  explains 

*  De  Sent.  Dionys.,  c.  4.  The  meaning  is,  the  Son  of  God  is  not  by  origin 
of  the  nature  of  the  Fatlier,  according  to  the  usual  law,  but  is  foreign  to  him 
in  substance,  the  relation  between  them  being  that  of  the  planter  to  the  vine, 
or  the  ship-carpenter  to  the  ship  he  builds,  —  a  doctrine  in  the  highest  degree 
anti-Sabellian,  and  certainly  on  the  very  confines  of  Arianism. 

t  De  Sent.  Dionys.,  c.  14. 

J  Athan.  De  Sent.  Dionys. ;  and  the  letter  of  Dionysius  himself  to  his  name- 
sake of  Rome,  in  Athan.  De  Syn.  Arim.  et  Seleuc,  c.  44;  De  Syn.  Nic.  Decret., 
c.  25.  Dionysius  uses  other  illustrations.  Thus,  alluding  to  a  former  letter, 
he  says  :  "  I  adduced  parallels  of  things  kindred  with  each  other ;  for  in- 
stance, that  a  plant  growing  from  seed,  or  from  root,  was  other  than  that  from 
which  it  sprang,  yet  was  altogether  one  in  nature  with  it ;  and  that  a  stream 


220  WEITERS   BETWEEN   ORIGEN   AND   ARIUS. 

in  what  sense  he  could  use  it ;  in  other  words,  in  what  sense 
he  could  say  that  the  Son  was  consubstantial  with  the  Father. 
"  I  took  the  example,"  he  says,  "  of  a  human  progeny,  which 
it  is  evident  is  of  the  same  genus  with  the  parent,"  that  is, 
consubstantial.  In  this  sense  "  consubstantial "  did  not  imply 
numerical  identity.  So,  according  to  Dionysius,  who  in  this 
followed  the  older  Fathers,  the  Father  and  the  Son  might  be 
pronounced  "  consubstantial,"  as  they  were  beings  of  the  same 
specific  nature,  that  is,  both  divine,  though  as  distinct  from 
each  other  as  Peter  and  John,  or  the  husbandman  and  the 
vine,  the  maker  of  the  ship  and  the  ship.  The  attempt  to 
prove  that  men  of  this  stamp  were  Trinitarians  in  any  such 
sense  as  would  satisfy  a  modern  expositor  of  the  doctrine  is 
perfectly  idle. 

Dionysius  was  called  to  attend  the  Council  of  Antioch,  as- 
sembled to  try  Paul  of  Samosata  ;  but  being  prevented  by  age 
and  infirmity  from  attending,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Synod 
expressing  his  views  on  the  subject  in  dispute,  and  died  soon 
after,  a.  d.  265. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus. 

About  the  same  year  (a.  d.  265)  died  another  of  the  pupils 
of  Origen,  and  his  great  admirer.  This  was  the  celebrated 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  the  "wonder-worker,"  as  he  was 
called ;  pronounced  by  Eusebius  *  to  be  one  of  the  "  most 
famous  bishops  of  the  age."  He  was  a  native  of  Neocsesarea 
in  Pontus,  and  was  born  of  heathen  parents.  Pursuing  the 
study  of  law  at  different  places,  and  among  others  at  Berytus 
and  Csesarea  in  Palestine,  he  at  the  latter  place  met  with 
Origen,  who,  captivated  by  his  brilliant  genius,  became  his 
teacher  and  won  him  over  to  Christianity.  Nothing  can  ex- 
ceed the  enthusiasm  with  which  Gregory  regarded  this  great 
Father.  Leaving  him  to  return  to  his  native  country  after  he 
had  been  his  pupil  for  five  years,  he  composed  a  panegyrical 

flowing  from  a  fountain,  gained  a  new  name,  for  that  neither  was  the  fountain 
called  stream,  nor  the  stream  fountain,  and  both  existed,  and  the  stream  wa» 
the  water  from  the  fountain." 
*  Hist;  vi.  30 ;  vii.  14 ;  and  Jerome,  De  Vir.  Illust,  c.  65. 


THEOGNOSTUS.  221 

oration  upon  him  which  is  still  extant.  He  then  returned  to 
Pontus,  and,  much  against  his  will,  was  made  bishop  there. 
Basil,  in  the  place  already  cited,*  charges  him,  as  well  as  Dio- 
nysius,  with  depressing  the  Son  to  the  rank  of  a  "  creature,"  or 
"work,"  —  something  produced.  We  discover  in  his  writings 
no  trace  of  a  belief  in  the  eternity  of  the  Son  ;  in  other  re- 
spects he  adopted  Origen's  views  of  his  nature.  He  held  him 
to  be  of  inferior  dignity  to  the  Father,  and  did  not  believe  in 
their  numerical  identity,  f 

Theognostus. 

Theognostus,  an  Alexandrian  writer,  not  mentioned  by  Eu- 
sebius  or  Jerome,  came  a  little  later  in  the  century,  being 
placed  in  the  last  third  part  of  it.  What  we  know  of  him, 
which  is  very  little,  we  gather  chiefly  from  Athanasius  and 
Photius.  Athanasius  quotes  him  to  prove  that  the  term  "  con- 
substantial  "  was  not  first  used  by  the  Fathers  of  Nice.  In 
the  second  book  of  his  Hypotyposes,  Theognostus,  he  says, 
writes  thus  :  "  The  substance  of  the  Son  is  not  anything  pro- 
cured from  without,  nor  accruing  from  nothing  ;  but  it  sprang 
from  the  Father's  substance,  as  radiance  from  light,  or  vapor 
from  water ;  for  neither  is  the  vapor,  nor  the  radiance,  the 
water  itself,  or  the  sun,  nor  is  it  foreign  to  it.  The  Son  is  an 
effluence  from  the  substance  of  the  Father,  without  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Father  undergoing  any  partition  ;  for  as  the  sun 
remains  the  same  and  is  not  diminished  by  the  rays  which 
flow  out  from  it,  so  neither  does  the  substance  of  the  Father 
undergo  any  change  through  the  Son  who  bears  its  image."  :j: 
Here  is  no  numerical  identity  of  substance  in  the  sense  of 
the  later  Athanasian  orthodoxy.  Yet  Athanasius  speaks  in 
high  terms  of  Theognostus,  and  calls  him  a  learned  man. 

Photius's  report  of  his  orthodoxy  is  unfavorable.  Photius 
had  read  his  writings  which  we  do  not  possess.  Theognostus, 
he  tells  us,§  calls  the  Son  a  "creature,"  and  says  that  he 

*  Epist.  9  et  210.     0pp.,  iii.  128,  458,  ed.  Par.  1839. 

t  On  the  subject  of  his  opinions,  and  the  creed  falsely  attributed  to  him, 
see  Martini,  Versuch,  etc.,  p.  230,  ff.  See  also  Lardner,  art.  "  Gregory  of  Neo- 
caesarea." 

t  Athau.  De  Syn.  Nic,  c.  25.  §  Biblioth.,  cod.  106. 


222  WKITERS   BETWEEN   ORIGEN   AND   ARIUS. 

"  presides  only  over  beings  endowed  with  reason,"  and  utters 
"  other  things  derogatory  to  the  Son,  after  the  manner  of 
Origen."  Nor  do  the  opinions  he  entertained  of  the  Spirit 
appear  to  have  been  any  more  orthodox. 

PlERIUS. 

Pierius,  an  Alexandrian,  flourished  about  the  same  time, 
perhaps  a  little  later;  surviving  some  years  after  the  com- 
mencement of  the  fourth  century.  We  glean  a  little,  and  but 
little,  of  him  from  Jerome  and  Eusebius.  He  was  of  Origen's 
school,  and  much  inclined  to  asceticism.  From  his  learning 
and  eloquence  he  was  called  the  younger  Origen.  We  have 
none  of  his  works  remaining.  Photius  says  that  he  spoke  wor- 
thily of  the  Father  and  Son,  only  he  "  made  them  two  sub- 
stances and  two  natures."  But  of  the  "  Holy  Spirit  he  spoke 
dangerously  and  impiously,  maintaining  that  it  was  inferior  in 
glory  to  tire  Father  and  Son."  *  He  passed  his  latter  days  at 
Rome. 

Methodius. 

Methodius,  Bishop  of  Olympus,  in  Lycia,  and  afterwards  of 
Tyre,  in  Phcenicia,  a  Greek  writer,  died  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  fourth  century.  Several  of  his  writings  remain, 
and  Photius  has  preserved  extracts  from  others  which  have,  in 
the  main,  perished.  Jerome,  in  his  book  of  "  Illustrious  Men," 
gives  a  short  account  of  him  ;  but  Eusebius,  in  his  History, 
does  not  name  him.  Valesiusf  attributes  the  omission  to  the 
fact  that  Methodius  wrote  against  Origen,  of  whom  the  histo- 
rian was  a  warm  admirer.  In  his  book  on  the  Resurrection, 
and  in  two  or  three  others,  Methodius  had  found  fault  with 
some  of  Origen's  opinions,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  he  cen- 
sured his  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  nor  could  he  consistently, 
for,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  he  was  himself  no  more  ortho- 
dox on  this  subject  than  Origen.  Socrates,  after  mentioning 
him,  with  three  others  whom  he  names,  as  among  the  revilers 
of  Origen,  says  that  he  afterwards  recanted,  and  expressed 
great  admiration  of  him.  But  whether  he  first  censured  and 
*  Biblioth.,  cod.  119.  t  Euseb.  Hist.,  vi.  24,  note. 


METHODIUS.  223 

then  praised,  or  the  reverse,  has  been  made  a  question,  which, 
however,  we  shall  not  take  time  to  discuss.  It  is  of  more  conse- 
quence to  observe  what  Socrates  adds,  that  none  of  the  calum- 
niators of  Orio;en  charged  him  with  "  entertainino;  ill  senti- 
ments  of  the  Trinity."  *  His  doctrine  was  the  orthodoxy  of 
the  age. 

As  to  Methodius,  his  opinions,  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt, 
were  those  generally  of  his  times.  He  says  that  the  Father 
was  the  principle  out  of  which  the  Logos,  which  was  before  in 
him,  proceeded.  Of  the  eternity  of  the  Son,  as  a  self-sub- 
sistent  being,  he  evidently  knew  nothing.  He  calls  him  the 
"  first  begotten  of  God  —  before  the  ages."  In  power  and 
dignity  he  held  the  Son  to  be  inferior  to  the  Father.  Speak- 
ing of  the  Son,  he  says  that  "  after  the  Father,  his  beginning- 
less  grand  cause,  he  is  in  himself  the  cause  of  all  other  things, 
which  were  made  through  him."  f  No  Athanasian  orthodoxy 
here.  The  opinions  which  now  ruled  in  the  East  were  of  a 
very  different  complexion  from  that.  No  wonder  that  the 
Arian  opinions  found  a  ready  reception  there.  Indeed,  so 
strongly  do  the  writings  of  Methodius  savor  of  Arianism,  that 
Photius  suspected  that  they  had  been  interpolated  or  corrupted 
by  the  Arians.^  But  no  marks  of  interpolation  can  be  discov- 
ered, and  "  learned  moderns,"  says  Lardner,  therefore,  "  have 
thought  themselves  obliged  to  admit  that  Methodius  Arian- 
ized."  §  Lardner  gives  several  quotations  and  references  in 
support  of  his  assertion,  adducing  the  authority  of  Tillemont,  || 
Basnage,  and  the  learned  Huet,  Origen's  editor.  Beausobre 
had  no  better  opinion  of  Methodius's  orthodoxy.  "  His  writ- 
ings," he  says,  "  savor  very  strongly  of  Arianism  and  Nesto- 
rianism."^  Of  the  assertion  of  Methodius  that  Christ  is  the 
"  most  ancient  of  the  JEons  and  first  of  the  archangels,"  he 
says,  it  is  "  furiously  Arian."  **     Among  other  strange  things 

*■  Hist.,  vi.  13.     See  the  note  of  Valesius. 

\  See  Martini,  Versuch,  etc.,  p.  245,  ff.  t  BibliotL,  cod.  237. 

§  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  190.     London,  1829. 

II  Tillemont  says,  that  it  is  difficult  to  give  a  good  sense  to  some  of  hia 
expressions  concerning  the  Word  and  the  procession  of  the  divine  persons. 
Mem.  Eccles.,  v.  200,  ed.  1732. 

IT  Hist,  de  Manichee,  etc.,  lib.  vi.  c.  3.     Tom  ii.  p.  817,  note. 

**  Ibid.,  lib.  i.  c.  10.     Tom.  i.  p.  118. 


224  WRITERS    BETWEEN    ORTGEN    AND    ARIUS. 

which  Methodius  taught  was  this,  —  that  the  Divine  Word 
incarnated  itself  in  Adam,  the  first  man  ;  but  that  he  being 
deprived  of  its  presence  by  sin,  it  incarnated  itself  anew  in 
the  Virgin  Mary.* 

LUCIAN. 

A  more  distinguished  personage  who  lived  in  these  days 
was  Lucian,  Presbyter  of  Antioch.  He  had  the  reputation  of 
being  a  very  learned  man,  and  was  especially  distinguished  for 
his  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures.  Eusebius  gives  him  in  all 
respects  a  very  exalted  character.f  Jerome  calls  him  very 
eloquent,  and  bears  testimony  to  his  laborious  study  of  the 
sacred  writings,  of  which  "  some  copies  were  still  called  Lu- 
cian's."^  This  refers  pi-obablyto  his  edition  of  the  Septuagint. 
Of  this  version  there  were  several  editions,  according  to  Je- 
rome :  that  of  Hesychius,  adopted  by  the  churches  of  Egypt ; 
that  of  Lucian,  in  use  from  Constantinople  to  Antioch  ;  and 
Origen's  copy  as  prepared  by  Pamphilus  and  Eusebius,  used  in 
Palestine  and  the  regions  adjoining. §  There  was  an  edition 
of  the  New  Testament  as  well  as  of  the  Old  by  Lucian  and 
Hesychius,  mentioned  by  Jerome.  ||  Lucian  suffered  martyi'- 
dom  at  Nicomedia,  in  the  year  311  or  312,  and  was  buried, 
according  to  Jerome,  in  Heliopolis,  in  Bithynia.  The  city  was 
much  favored  by  Constantine  for  that  reason,  and  the  empress 
Helena  regarded  it  with  peculiar  affection  as  the  place  Avhere 
the  ashes  of  the  martyr  reposed.^ 

Lncian  had  many  followers.  Born  at  Samosata,  after  the 
ieath  of  his  parents  he  passed  some  time  at  Edessa,  and  thence 
lemoved  to  Antioch,  where  he  is  said  to  have  established  a 
theological  school.  According  to  Pliilostorgius,  most  of  the 
Arian  chiefs,  as  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  Maris  of  Chalcedon, 
Theognis  of  Nice,  Leontius  of  Antioch,  and  others,  were  his 
disciples.** 

*  Hist,  de  Manich^e,  etc.,  lib.  i.  c.  10,  and  lib.  vi.  c.  3. 

t  Hist.,  viii.  13,  and  ix.  6.  t  ^e  ^«>-  ■?''««'•.  c  77. 

§  Prcef.  in  Paralip.     0pp.,  i.  1027,  ed.  Par.  1609. 

II  Pr(Bf.  in  Qiiat.  Evang.     Tom.  iii.  p.  666. 

IT  Philostorgius,  Hist.,  ii.  12.  **  Ibid.,  ii.  14 


LUCIAN.  225 

What  were  his  own  theological  opinions,  it  has  been  thought 
difficult  to  decide.  There  are  some  significant  facts,  however, 
which  deserve  to  be  mentioned  in  this  connection.  Alexander, 
Bishop  of  Alexandria,  intimates  that  he  held  the  views  of  Paul 
of  Samosata,  and  in  an  obscure  passage  says,  that  he  remained 
"  out  of  the  Synagogue  "  for  a  long  period  during  the  times  of 
three  Bishops.*  But  that  he  was  ever  separated  from  the 
Church,  or  excommunicated  on  account  of  his  opinions,  we  do 
not  consider  an  estabhshed  fact.  The  respect  with  which  he 
is  uniformly  spoken  of  by  Athanasius,  Jerome,  and  others,  — 
orthodox  men,  —  and  the  reverence  in  which  his  memory  was 
held,  seem, inconsistent  with  the  supposition.! 

The  followers  of  Arius,  however,  were  often,  as  we  know, 
called  Lucianists  ;  and  Arius,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Eusebius 
of  Nicomedia,  speaks  of  him  as  a  "  fellow  Lucianist."  J  The 
creed  attributed  to  him,§  on  disputable  grounds,  however,  is  a 
noteworthy  document.  Athanasius  and  others  find  it  ortho- 
dox ;  but  the  Arians  seem  to  have  claimed  and  used  it  in 
the  fourth  century.  There  were  expressions  in  it,  certainly, 
which  both  parties  could  accept.  It  says  nothing  of  the 
eternity  of  the  Logos,  or  Son  ;  the  expression  "  before  all 
ages  "  necessarily  meaning  no  more  than  that  he  existed  before 
all  created  beings ;  the  obnoxiovis  term  "  consubstantial  "  is 
avoided  ;  and  there  is  clearly  nothing  in  the  composition  which 
teaches  the  numerical  identity  of  the  Father  and  Son.  So  far 
the  Arians  could  adopt  it.  But  some  expressions  occur  in  it 
which  the  true  Arians  must  have  found  it  a  little  difficult  to 
reconcile  with  their  peculiar  belief.  The  use  made  of  Lucian's 
name  by  the  Arians,  however,  and  the  fact  that  so  many  of  the 
Arian  chiefs  were  of  his  school,  and  that  the  sect  were  called 
Lucianists,  might,  even  if  there  were  nothing  else,  create  a 

*  Ap.  Theod.  Hist.  Ecdes.,  lib.  i.  c.  4. 

t  "  Out  of  the  Synagogue  "  is  a  literal  translation  of  the  Greek  word  used 
by  Alexander.  The  word  occurs  twice  in  John's  Gospel  (ix.  22,  and  xvi.  2) 
The  sense  is  there  clear,  to  be  cast  out  of  the  Synagogue  being  a  well-known 
Jewish  punishment.  But  what  the  term  means  as  applied  to  Lucian  by  Alex 
ander,  who  does  not  explain,  the  learned  find  it  difficult  to  decide.  Tillemont 
after  discussing  the  subject,  very  frankly  says,  that  he  will  venture  to  deter 
mine  nothing  respecting  it,  since  history  has  determined  nothing.  Mem 
pedes.,  V.  202,  and  n.  347. 

}  Ap.  Theod.  Hid.  Ecdes.,  lib.  i.  c.  5.  §  Soc,  ii.  10 ;  Soz.,  iii.  6. 

15 


226  WRITERS    BETWEEN    ORIGEN    AND    ARIUS. 

doubt  of  his  orthodoxy.  In  truth,  we  suppose  that  it  was  of 
no  higher  stamp  than  the  orthodoxy  of  his  age,  —  that  of 
Theognostus,  Pierius,  and  Methodius,  or  the  disciples  of  Origen 
generally,  perhaps  on  some  points  verging  a  little  more  de- 
cidedly towards  Arianism.  Thus  it  is  clear  that  the  attempt 
of  Noetus,  Sabellius,  and  others,  to  reconcile  the  divinity  of  the 
Son  with  the  unity  of  God,  had  met  with  little  success.  The 
Sabellian  principle,  that  the  Logos  had  no  separate  personality, 
or  was  not  a  self-subsistent  being,  was,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Oriental  bishops,  rank  heresy.  The  tendency,  as  we  have 
said,  was  now  in  the  opposite  direction. 


CYPRIAN.  227 


CHAPTER  II. 

Htprian.  —  Makes  the  Son  Subokdinate.  —  Confounds  the  Spirii 
WITH  THE  Logos.  —  Novatian.  —  Proofs  from  him  of  the  Derived 
Na^ture  and  Inferiority  of  the  Son.  —  How  he  preserved  the 
Unity  of  God.  —  His  Views  of  the  Spirit.  —  Arnobius. — How  he 

SPEAKS  OF  the  FaTHER  AND  SON.  LaCTANTIUS.  —  HiS  LEARNING 

AND   Eloquence.  —  Admitted  to  be  Unsound   on   the    Subject    of 
THE  Trinity.  —  Proofs. 

Cyprian. 

Such  were  the  Greek  writers  who  immediately  preceded  the 
rise  of  Arianism.  There  are  some  Latin  authors  of  note,  how- 
ever, of  whose  opinions  we  must  say  something  before  we  pro- 
ceed to  the  great  controversy  of  the  age.  The  first  is  Cyprian 
(Thascius  Csecihus  Cyprianus),  an  African  by  birth,  and  at 
the  time  of  his  martyrdom,  a.  d.  258,  Bishop  of  Cai'thage.  He 
was  educated  in  Heathenism,  and,  according  to  Jerome,  ob- 
tained celebrity  as  a  teacher  of  rhetoric.  After  his  conversion, 
which  is  attributed  to  C^cilius,  a  presbyter  of  Carthage,  whose 
name  he  took,  he  rose  rapidly  in  the  church.  He  was  a  great 
admirer  of  Tertullian,  and  was  accustomed  to  read  a  portion 
of  his  writings  every  day,  saying,  "Give  me  my  master."  His 
style  had  something  of  the  African  taint :  it  M'as  declamatory 
and  rhetorical ;  but  was  much  less  hard  than  that  of  Tertullian. 
He  left  a  variety  of  letters  and  treatises,  relating  mostly  to 
Christian  morality  and  discipline.  From  these  it  is  not  difficult 
to  gather  his  sentiments  concerning  the  nature  of  Christ.  He 
speaks  of  God  as  "  one,"  "  supreme,"  and  bestows  on  him 
other  epithets  which  show  that  he  regarded  him  as  without 
partner  or  equal. 

Referring  to  the  Son  he  says,  in  his  treatise  on  the  "  Vanity 
of  Idols,"— the  "Word,"  or  the  "Son  of  God,"  who  is 
"  sent,"  is  the  "  power  of  God,  his  Reason,  his  Wisdom  and 
Glory."     In  connection  with  this  he  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit 


228  WRITERS   BETWEEN   ORIGEN    AND   ARIUS. 

as  becoming  "  clothed  with  flesh,"  thus  confounding  the  Spirit 
with  the  Logos.  Many  of  the  early  Fathers  did  the  same.  In 
regard  to  the  Spirit  they  wavered  and  were  inconsistent  with 
themselves,  sometimes  identifying  it  with  the  Logos,  at  other 
times  making  a  difference.  This  is  not  surprising,  as  nothing 
had  as  yet  been  authoritatively  determined  respecting  it,  and 
there  had  been  little  discussion  on  the  subject.  In  other  parts 
of  his  writings  Cyprian  distinguishes  the  Spirit  from  the  Logos, 
making  it  inferior  in  dignity  to  Christ  himself,  as  being  "  sent  " 
by  him,  he  as  superior  sending  it.*  He  calls  Christ  God,  that 
is,  as  the  Son  of  God,  but  clearly  denies  his  supremacy.  "  If 
just  men,  who  obeyed  the  divine  precepts,  could  be  called 
Gods,  how  much  more,"  he  says,  "  Christ  the  Son  of  God," 
alluding  to  John  x.  34—37.  Here  is  a  palpable  distinction,  the 
Son,  he  whom  the  Father  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world, 
being  clearly  made  subordinate.! 

Again,  after  mentioning  God  the  Creator  as  the  Father  of 
Christ,  Cyprian  adds :  "  The  power  by  which  we  are  baptized 
and  sanctified,  Christ  received  from  the  same  Father  whom  he 
pronounced  greater,  by  whom  he  prayed  that  he  might  be 
sanctified,  whose  will  he  fulfilled,  to  the  point  of  drinking  the 
cup,  and  submitting  to  death. "J  Again,  "  By  the  preaching 
and  testimony  of  Christ  himself,  the  Father  who  sent  is  to  be 
first  acknowledged,  then  Christ  who  was  sent."§  Again, 
"All  power  is  given  to  me."||  All  this  proves  that  Cyprian 
never  thought  of  a  numerical  identity  of  the  Father  and  Son, 
but  regarded  them  as  two  distinct  beings,  the  Father  being  the 
Fountain  and  Giver  of  all  the  power  and  dignity  possessed  by 
the  Son.  One  further  passage  we  will  give  to  this  point. 
Thus  our  obligation  to  honor  the  Son  is  made  by  Cyprian  to 
rest  on  the  will  and  command  of  the  Father.  "  The  Father, 
God,"  says  he,  "  commanded  that  his  Son  be  adored,  and  the 
Apostle  Paul,  mindful  of  the  divine  precept,  says,  God  exalted 
him,  and  gave  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name,  that  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow  of  things  in  heaven, 
things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth."  ^    Thus  all  is  of 

*  Epist.  Ixxiv.  (Gersdorf),  ad  Pompeium,  c.  5. 

t  Test.  adv.  JudcEos,  lib.  ii.  c.  6. 

t  Epist.  Ixxiii.,  ad  Jubaian,  c.  18.  §  Ibid.,  c.  17. 

II  Ibid.,  c.  5.  1  De  Bono  Patientice,  c.  24. 


NOVATIAN.  229 

God.  The  ancient  Christians  had  not  learned  that  refinement 
of  logic,  by  which  he  who  sends  and  he  who  is  sent  are  made 
one.  They  went  on  the  assumption  that  they  must  necessarily 
be  two.  Certainly,  to  prove  that  they  held  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  in  a  form  at  all  resembling  the  modern,  or  Athanasian, 
we  must  go  elsewhere  than  to  the  writings  of  Cyprian. 

NOVATIAN. 

A  more  important  witness  is  Novatian,  a  theological  writer 
of  some  eminence,  a  contemporary  of  Cyprian.  His  heresy, 
which  consisted  in  his  refusal  to  readmit  to  communion  those 
who  in  a  time  of  persecution  had  denied  the  faith,  —  the 
Lapsed,  as  they  were  called,  —  does  not  aflPect  the  value  of  his 
testimony  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  on  which  he  wrote  a 
work  still  extant.*  Of  all  the  writings  of  Christian  antiquity 
which  time  has  spared,  relative  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
this  is  the  most  copious  and  full.  It  is  a  direct  treatise  on  the 
subject,  and  wholly  devoted  to  it.  Cyprian,  a  good  authority 
in  this  case,  though  he  writes  with  great  bitterness  against 
Novatian,  does  not  impugn  his  orthodoxy  as  regards  the  Trin- 
ity, but  seems,  by  implication  at  least,  to  admit  it ;  f  and  Sozo- 
men  says  that  he  innovated  on  established  doctrines  only  by  his 
severe  treatment  of  penitents.^  His  work,  inserted  in  many 
editions  of  the  writings  of  Tertullian,  is  called  by  Jerome 
an  epitome  of  a  treatise  by  that  Father ;  but  its  style,  which 
differs  widely  from  that  of  Tertullian,  marks  it  as  original. 
Many,  says  Jerome,  ignorantly  attributed  it  to  Cyprian.  It 
was  written  by  Novatian,  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
not  before  the  year  250,  probably  in  256  or  257. 

Novatian's  orthodoxy,  higli  as  it  is,  falls  far  below  the  stand- 
ard of  subsequent  centuries,  when  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
was  considered  as  in  a  manner  defined  and  established.  He 
never  dreamed  of  asserting  the  equality  of  the  Son  with  the 
Father.  No  Ante-Nicene  writer  furnishes  more  decisive  tes- 
timony to  the  old  doctinne  of  the  undivided  supremacy  of  the 

*  De  Regula  Fidei,  sive  de  Trinitate,  Liber.     We  use  Jackson's  edition,  Lond. 
1728. 

f  Epist.  Ixix.,  Gersdorf.  J  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi  24. 


230  WRITEES   BETWEEN   ORIGEN   AND   ARIUS. 

Father  and  the  derived  nature  and  inferiority  of  the  Son. 
The  Spirit  he  places  still  lower.  Du  Pin  notices  the  charge 
of  Rufinus  and  Jerome,  that  the  book  on  the  Trinity  cited 
by  them,  supposed  to  be  the  same  we  now  have,  denies  the 
divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.* 

But  let  us  proceed  methodically.  The  first  four  chapters 
of  Novatian's  book  relate  to  God.  In  his  first  chapter  he 
says  :  "  The  rule  of  faith  requires  that  first  of  all  we  believe 
in  God  the  Father  and  omnipotent  Lord,  the  most  perfect 
Creator  of  all  things,  who  suspended  the  heavens  on  high," 
etc.  Then  follows  a  sublime  description  of  things  created. 
In  the  three  subsequent  chapters,  he  proceeds  to  speak  more 
at  large  of  the  attributes  of  the  Divine  Being,  who  is  the 
"  Maker  of  all  things,  —  containing  all,  —  moving,  vivifying 
all";  —  "without  origin  and  without  end,"  whom  "no  words 
can  adequately  describe  and  no  mind  comprehend,"  —  in 
strength,  virtue,  beauty,  truth,  majest}^,  riches,  power,  good- 
ness, surpassing  all ;  "  whom  alone  our  Lord  with  reason  pro- 
nounces good,"  —  who  is  "immutable,  one,  without  equal, 
unbegotten,  infinite,  incorruptible,  and  immortal."  The  epi- 
thets here  applied  to  the  Supreme  God  are  never,  either  by 
Novatian  or  any  other  Ante-Nicene  writer,  applied  to  the  Son. 

In  his  ninth  chapter  he  speaks  of  the  Son.  He  bestows  on 
him  high  titles,  and  once  calls  him  "  our  Lord  God  "  ;  but  why 
and  in  what  sense  he  is  to  be  so  regarded,  the  author  clearly 
explains  in  subsequent  parts  of  the  treatise.  Novatian  be- 
lieved Christ  to  be  both  God  and  man,  but  not  in  the  modern 
or  Athanasian  sense.  In  him,  says  Novatian,  the  Divinity  of 
the  Word  being  united  by  "  concretion  "  or  commixture  with 
human  nature,  constituting  an  indivisible  unity,  we  hold  him 
to  be  God  according  to  the  Scriptures. f  He  was  God  and 
man,  but  not,  as  Novatian  teaches,  the  supreme  God ;  man  as 
born  of  man,  God  as  born  or  begotten  of  God,  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  old  Fathers,  that  what  is  born  of  God  is 
God,  that  is,  divine,  con  substantial  with  God,  as  what  is  born 
of  man  is  man,  that  is,  human,  con  substantial  witli  man,  nu- 
merical identity  being  excluded,  there  being  only  identity  of 

*  Eccles.  Writers,  vol.  i.  art.  "Novatian."     Lond.  1693. 
t  Cap.  11. 


NOVATIAN.  231 

sind  or  species.  "  Nature  itself,"  says  Novatian,  "  teaoKes  us 
to  hold  him  as  man  who  is  of  man  ;  so  it  teaches  us  to  hold 
him  as  God  who  is  of  God."  *  So  Christ  is  God  and  man. 
He  has  his  origin  from  God,  and  sustains  the  same  relation  to 
him  as  a  human  being  sustains  to  its  father. 

But  the  inferiority  and  dependence  of  the  Son,  as  well  as 
his  distinct  individual  nature,  are  clearly  asserted  by  Novatian 
in  those  very  passages  in  which  he  ascribes  to  him  the  highest 
honor  and  dignity.  Thus  he  speaks  of  him  as  "  Lord  and 
prince  of  the  whole  world,"  but  adds  that  "  all  things  were 
delivered  to  him  by  his  Father."  f  Again,  he  is  "  prince  of 
all  the  angels,  before  whom  there  was  nothing  except  the 
Father,"  J  but  the  Father  was  before  him.  Here  supreme, 
independent  divinity  is  clearly  denied  him.  The  Son  might 
be  older  than  all  creatures,  older  than  the  angels  and  the  high- 
est intelligences,  as  Novatian  believed, §  might  exist  "  before 
time,"  that  is,  as  the  expression  meant,  before  the  constitution 
of  the  world  ;  but  to  assert  this  was  very  different  from  assert- 
ing that  he  was  co-eternal  with  the  Father,  which  the  Ante- 
Nicene  writers  generally  never  thought  of  doing.  Many  of 
them  believed,  with  Justin  Martyr,  that  the  Son  was  begotten 
a  little  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  or  as  the  first  step  to 
creation  ;  others  were  less  definite  ;  biit  all,  Origen  perhaps 
excepted,  denied  eternity  proper  to  the  Son,  as  such,  that  is, 
as  a  separate  personal  subsistence,  or  being.  Novatian,  as  we 
have  seen,  asserts  that  the  Father  was  before  the  Son ;  and  he 
teaches  the  same  in  other  places. 

Passages  without  number  might  be  quoted  to  show  that  he 
held  the  Son  to  be  a  distinct  being  from  the  Father  and  subor- 
dinate to  him.  In  John  i.  3,  —  "All  things  were  made  by 
him,"  —  lie  recognizes  the  Son  or  Word  only  as  minister  of 
tlie  Father,  receiving  and  executing  his  commands.  ||     He  puts 

*  Cap.  11.     Compare  cc.  21,  23. 

t  Ibid.  [So  he  is  represented  by  Novatian  as  "  constituted  Lord  and  God  of 
(he  whole  creation,"  "universaj  creaturae  et  Dominus  et  Deus  constitutus  esse 
reperitur"  (c.  20),  and  as  "  having  obtained  from  his  Father  that  he  should  be 
both  God  and  Lord  of  all,"  —  "  hoc  ipsum  a  Patre  proprio  consecutus,  ut  om- 
nium et  Deus  esset  et  Dominus  esset"  (c.  22).  See  Jackson's  note,  pp.  163, 
164.  —  Ed.] 

t  Ibid  §  Cap.  16.  II  Cap.  17. 


232  WRITERS    BETWEEN    ORIGEN    AND    ARIUS. 

a  wholly  Unitarian  construction  on  the  celebrated  passage, 
"  Who  being  in  the  form  of  God,"  etc.  (Phil.  ii.  6-12).*  In 
the  assertion,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one  "  (John  x.  30),  he 
does  not  find  the  supreme  divinity  of  Christ,  nor,  according  to 
the  later  orthodoxy,  a  numerical  identity  of  Father  and  Son. 
"  Number,"  that  is,  of  persons,  he  says,  "  is  not  referred  to, 
the  neuter  gender  being  used  ";  one  thing,  one  in  "  concord, 
sentiment,  and  affection."  He  quotes  as  a  parallel  passage 
the  assertion  of  Paiil :  "  He  that  planteth  and  he  that  water- 
eth  are  one  "  (1  Cor.  iii.  8).  Yet  here  ai'e  two ;  Paul  and 
Apollos  are  not  to  be  confounded,  the  neuter  gender  being 
used,  as  in  the  other  instance.  The  case  is  argued  by  Nova- 
tian  at  some  length,  but  the  point  will  be  readily  perceived 
without  further  Avords.f  Alluding  to  the  same  passage,  "  I 
and  my  Father  are  one,"  in  another  place,  Novatian  refers  to 
the  relation  of  sonship,  and  saj^s  that  Christ  would  have  it 
understood  that  he  was  "  God  as  being  the  Son  of  God,  not 
that  he  was  the  Father  himself,"  ;[:  that  is,  as  being  numeri- 
cally one  with  him.  This  is  not  the  inference  which  any  of 
the  old  Fathers  drew  from  the  passage. 

The  "  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  or  "  He  who  sent  me  is 
greater  than  I,"  as  Novatian  has  it,  is  one  of  the  proof  texts 
which  he  cites  to  show  that  Christ  is  a  distinct  being  from  the 
Father,  and  occupies  a  second  place.  Novatian  clearly  takes 
the  words  in  their  most  natural  and  obvious  sense.  The  dis- 
tinction of  two  natures,  used  in  support  of  a  different  mean- 
ing, was  the  refinement  of  a  later  age.  In  this  connection 
and  to  the  same  effect,  (c.  26,)  Novatian  quotes  numerous 
other  passages,  which,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  we  omit.  We 
observe  simply  that  they  are  the  very  passages  which  Unita- 
rians are  in  the  habit  of  adducing  to  prove  the  distinct  nature 
and  subordination  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  for  which  purpose, 
it  is  worthy  of  note,  Novatian  himself  cites  them.  In  his  next 
chapter  (the  twenty-seventh),  Novatian  asserts  that  Christ  is 
less  than  the  Father  as  receiving  sanctification  from  him.  "  If," 
says  he,  "  he  had  been  the  Father,"  (the  supreme  God,)  "  he 
would  have  given  sanctification,  not  received  it." 

*  Cap.  22.  t  Cap.  27.     Comp.  c.  13. 

$  Cap.  16i.     See  Jackson's  note,  p.  116. 


NOVATIAN.  233 

Like  the  other  ancient  Fathers,  Novatian  attributes  the 
theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  Son.  For  the 
Father  himself,  the  supreme  one,  the  only  true  God,  is  infi- 
nite, and  cannot  be  contained  within  any  limits  of  place  ;  can- 
not ascend  nor  descend,  but  contains  and  fills  all  things.  Not 
so  the  Son,  who  is  capable  of  ascending  and  descending,  and 
can  be  enclosed  within  space.  Here  is  a  very  clear  distinction. 
One  is  Supreme,  Infinite,  the  other  not ;  one  fills  all  space, 
the  other  not,  but  can  move  from  place  to  place  and  be  en- 
closed within  doors  ;  one  is  visible,  the  other  invisible.* 

But  if  the  Father  is  God,  and  Christ  is  God,  in  other  than 
a  Sabellian  sense,  how,  it  might  be  asked,  does  it  appear  that 
we  have  not  two  Gods  ?  This  question  Novatian  attempts  to 
answer  in  his  last  two  chapters,  the  thirtieth  and  thirty-first. 
In  doing  this,  as  we  shall  see,  he  repeats  the  Logos  doctrine 
of  the  older  Fathers,  making  the  Son  a  divine  being,  having, 
after  he  was  begotten,  a  distinct  personal  subsistence,  but 
being  subordinate  to  the  Father,  not  co-equal  and  co-eternal 
with  him.  We  pass  over  his  thirtieth  chapter,  in  which  he 
rather  plays  round  the  subject  than  grapples  with  it,  and  give 
a  brief  summary  of  his  argument  in  his  thirty-first,  chiefly  in 
his  own  Avords.  The  Father,  he  says,  though  "  Institutor  and 
Creator  of  all,  alone  knows  no  origin  ;  is  invisible,  immense, 
immortal,  eternal ;  one  God,  of  incomparable  greatness,  majesty, 
and  power ;  of  whom,  when  he  willed,  the  Word  or  Son  was 
begotten."  He  was  "always  in  the  Father,"  as  his  unbegot- 
ten  virtue  or  energy,  but  had  no  distinct  personal  subsistence. 
For  the  "  Father  was  not  always  Father."  "  The  Father 
precedes  him"  (the  Son),  in  that  as  Father  he  must  be  prior, 
since  "  he  who  has  no  origin  must  of  necessity  precede  him 
Avho  has  an  origin."  The  Father  preceded  all ;  the  Son  was 
"before  all  things  [created],  but  was  after  the  Father,  by 
whose  will  all  things  were  made  "  through  him.  He  is  "  God 
as  proceeding  from  God,  constituting  as  Son  a  second  person 
after  the  Father,  but  not  preventing  Him  from  being  the  One 
God."  "  If  he  were  not  begotten,  there  would  be  two  unbe- 
gotten,  and  so  two  Gods."  More  Novatian  adds  in  the  same 
strain.  If  the  Son  were  invisible,  we  should  have  two  invis- 
*  Capp.  17,  18. 


234  WRITERS    BETWEEN    ORIGEX    AND    ARIUS. 

ibles,  and  so  two  Gods.  And  so,  if  he  were  incomprehensible. 
"  But  now,  whatever  he  is,  he  is  not  of  himself,  but  of  the 
Father,  as  begotten  of  him."  So  all  "  discord,"  as  to  number, 
"  as  of  two  Gods,"  is  removed.  There  is  one  "  Principle  and 
head  of  all  things."  The  Son  "  does  nothing  of  his  own  will, 
or  his  own  counsel,  but  in  all  things  obeys  the  precepts  and 
commands  of  the  Father."  So  there  are  not  two  Gods. 
There  are  not  two  "  fountains  "  of  Divinity,  but  one.  "  All 
things  being  subjected  to  him  [Christ]  by  the  Father,  he  is 
with  them  that  are  subjected,  found  in  concord  with  the  Father, 
who  gave  all  and  to  whom  all  reverts."  Thus  is  there  one 
only  "  true  and  eternal  God,  the  Father." 

So  Novatian  saves  the  unity.  The  very  gist  of  his  argu- 
ment is,  that  supreme  divinity  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  Christ. 
He  is  not  co-equal  or  co-eternal  with  the  Father.  Here  is  no 
part  of  the  Athanasian  Trinity.  All  is  to  be  referred  to  the 
Father,  the  original  Fountain,  "  Principle  and  Head  of  all." 
Christ  was  God,  but  not  the  one  infinite  God ;  not  self-existent ; 
not  having  a  personal,  individual  being  from  eternity,  but  de- 
riving his  origin,  divinity,  power,  and  authority  from  the  one 
only  Supreme  and  Unbegotten  God,  the  self- existent  and 
Eternal   One. 

The  inferiority  of  the  Spirit  is  clearly  asserted  by  Novatian. 
Thus,  commenting  on  the  words  of  Christ,  "  He  shall  receive  of 
mine  and  shall  show  it  unto  you,"  he  says,  "  Greater  is  Christ 
than  the  Paraclete  ;  since  the  Paraclete  could  not  receive  of 
Christ,  unless  he  were  less  than  Christ."  This  passage  was 
audaciously  tampered  with  by  Gagnaeus,  Novatian's  first  editor, 
who  could  not  endure  its  plain  meaning.  The  true  text  is 
restored  by  Jackson.* 

Novatian,  certainly,  does  not  call  the  Spirit  God  or  Lord, 
though  he  does  not,  as  did  some  of  the  old  Fathers,  place  it 
among  the  creatures  made  by  the  Son.  We  do  not  think  that 
he  clearly  teaches  its  permanent  personality  even.  He  speaks 
of  it  mostly  in  Scripture  language,  as  the  "  promised  Spirit," 

*  Cap.  16.  For  the  manner  in  which  the  ancient  Fathers  spoke  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  —  many  of  them  calling  it  a  "  creature,"  or  "  work,"  and  none  of 
'hem,  if  we  except  Tertullian,  after  he  became  a  Montanist,  "Lord"  or 
'  God,"  —see  Jackson's  notes,  pp.  217,  371. 


ARNOBIUS.  235 

to  ho  poured  out  in  the  "  last  days  "  on  God's  servants,  re- 
ferring to  its  effusion  at  Pentecost.  It  dwelt  in  "  Clmst  alone 
in  all  its  fiilness,"  the  fountain  remaining  in  him  affluent  and 
overflowing.  He  connects  it  as  a  certain  divine  seed  or  germ 
with  the  second  birth.  In  all  this  there  is  nothing  which 
necessarily  implies  personality,  and  much  which  is  incon- 
sistent with  it.  Certainly  Novatian  does  not  exalt  the  Spirit 
into  one  of  three  co-equal  persons,  and  he  distinctly,  as  we 
have  seen,  asserts  that  it  is  "  less  than  Christ,"  never  calling 
it  "  God  "  or  "  Lord." 

Arnobius. 

We  return  to  Africa,  where  Ave  find  the  young  Arnobius 
teaching  rhetoric  with  great  reputation,  as  Jerome  says,  at 
Sicca.  Jerome  further  tells  us  that  his  work  in  defence  of 
Christianity  was  produced  soon  after  his  conversion,  to  prove 
his  sincerity.  It  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  early  in  the 
fourth  century,  though  some  critics  assign  to  it  an  earlier  date. 
That  part  of  it  which  is  devoted  to  a  refutation  of  Heathenism 
is  very  full,  exhibiting  minute  and  extensive  reading  on  sub- 
jects connected  with  the  religions  of  antiquity  ;  but  his  knowl- 
edge of  Christianity  has  been  generally  pronoimced  scanty 
and  superficial.  We  must  not  look  in  his  works  for  any  very 
precise  statements  of  doctrine.  His  orthodoxy  appears  to  have 
been  that  of  his  age ;  that  is,  he  maintained  the  supremacy  of 
the  Father,  and  makes  the  Son  a  different  being  and  subordi- 
nate. Thus  he  speaks  of  the  "  omnipotent  and  just  God," 
who  is  "  alone  unbegotten,  immortal,  and  everlasting,"  —  the 
"  Father,  governor,  and  Lord  of  all  things."  These  and  sim- 
ilar expressions  are  applied  exclusively  to  the  Father,  never 
to  Christ,  who  was  "  sent  unto  us  by  the  Supreme  King,"  and 
spake  by  his  "  command."  He  is  the  "  giver  of  immortality," 
as  the  "  Supreme  King  has  appointed  him  to  that  office."  * 
Lardner  doubts  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  is  once  mentioned  by 
Arnobius ;  if  so,  it  is  in  an  obscure  expression,  of  the  mean- 
ing of  which  we  cannot  be  certain. f 

*  Adv.  Nationes,  ii.  65 ;  i.  31 ;  ii.  35,  and  2. 

t  See  Martini,  Verstich,  etc.,  pp.  255,  256 ;  Lardner,  iii.  473.    London,  1829 


236  writers  between  origen  and  arius. 

Lactantius. 

Leaving  ArnoLius,  we  pass  to  his  celebrated  pupil  Lactan- 
tius. Of  the  early  life  of  Lactantius  little  or  nothing  is  known. 
We  are  not  informed  even  of  the  place  of  his  nativity.  It  has 
been  supposed  by  some  to  have  been  Firmium,  in  Italy ;  others 
make  him  of  African  birth,  possibly  a  native  of  Numidia. 
Certain  it  is  that  he  was  early  in  Africa,  and  then  studied 
rhetoric  under  Arnobius,  of  whom  we  have  just  spoken.  The 
Emperor  Diocletian,  holding  his  court  at  Nicomedia,  invited 
him,  as  Jerome  says,*  to  take  up  his  abode  there,  which  he 
did.  He  there  taught  rhetoric,  but  Nicomedia  being  a  Greek 
city,  he  had  few  pupils.  Latin  eloquence  was  in  little  demand. 
He  gave  himself  up,  therefore,  to  the  writing  of  books,  and 
was  very  poor,  often  wanting  even  the  necessaries  of  life.  In 
his  old  age  Constantine  engaged  him  to  take  charge  of  the 
education  of  his  son  Crispus,  in  GauL  He  has  been  called 
the  most  learned  man  of  his  time.  At  what  period  or  where 
he  ended  his  days,  history  has  not  told  us.  Treves,  in  Gaul, 
has  been  assigned  as  the  place  of  his  death,  and  the  date  given 
as  between  a.  d.  325  and  330,  but  on  no  certain  evidence. 

There  is  no  doubt  of  his  extensive  learning,  but  his  want 
of  judgment  and  critical  skill  has  been  genenxlly  admitted. 
For  his  eloquence  he  has  been  called  the  "  Christian  Cicero." 
Jerome  says  that  he  "  flows  like  a  river  of  Tullian  eloquence  "; 
but  theologians  and  critics  have  found  his  works  full  of  errors, 
amounting,  according  to  some,  to  one  hundred  and  seventy, 
partly  philosophical  and  partly  theological.  Nothing  could 
induce  him  to  believe  in  the  Antipodes.  He  makes  himself 
very  merry  at  the  idea  of  such  a  thing,  and  treats  it  as 
absurd. f  Of  the  fall  of  the  angels  he  thought  with  Justin 
Martyr ;  J  and  like  him  he  quotes  without  scruple  the  books 
of  the  Sibyls,  and  other  productions  of  the  kind,  as  genuine  and 
authentic,  and  of  equal  weight  with  the  Hebrew  prophecies. 
He  shared  Justin's  notions,  too,  of  the  millennium,  for  which 
Jerome  ridicules  him.§  This  happy  event  Lactantius  though! 
could  not  be  delayed  more  than  two  hundred  years. 

*  De  Vir.  Illust.,  c.  80.  t  Tnst,  iii.  25. 

J  Inst,,  ii.  15.  §  Comment,  ad  Ezekiel.,  c.  36. 


LACTANTIUS.  237 

Lactantius  is  generally  admitted  to  have  been  unsound  on 
the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  as  the  doctrine  was  explained  in 
times  subsequent  to  the  Council  of  Nice.  We  will  quote  a 
httle  of  his  lano-uacre.  The  following  is  his  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  Son.  "  Before  this  glorious  world  arose,"  says 
he,  "  God,  the  maker  and  disposer  of  all  things,  begat  a  holy 
and  incorruptible,  and  incomprehensible  Spirit,  called  his  Son  ; 
and  though  he  afterwards  created  innumerable  others  whom 
we  call  angels,  yet  this  first-born  alone  was  deemed  worthy  of 
the  divine  name,"  *  The  angels,  according  to  Lactantius, 
were  created  immediately  by  God,  but,  "  between  this  Son  of 
God  and  the  other  angels,  there  i?,"  says  he,  "  a  great  differ- 
ence." f  But  his  subordination  to  the  Father  is  expressly 
taught  by  Lactantius.  God,  says  he,  when  he  formed  the 
world,  "  placed  this  his  first  and  greatest  Son  over  the  whole 
work,  and  used  him  as  his  counsellor  and  artificer  in  planning, 
adorning,  and  perfecting  things."  J  His  loyalty,  obedience, 
and  testimony  to  the  one  only  God,  are  thus  stated  by  Lac- 
tantius, who  says  that  he  is  of  a  "  middle  nature  or  substance 
between  God  and  man."§  "  He  showed  himself  true  to  God, 
and  taught  that  there  is  one  God,  who  alone  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped ;  neither  did  he  once  call  himself  God,  for  he  could 
not  have  been  true  to  his  commission,  if  being  sent  that  he 
might  destroy  the  belief  in  Gods  [many  Gods],  and  teach  one 
God,  he  had  introduced  another  beside  this  one.  Because  he 
was  thus  faithful,  assuming  nothing  to  himself,  but  fulfilling 
the  commands  of  him  that  sent  him,  he  received  the  dignity  of 
a  perpetual  priesthood,  and  the  honors  of  the  highest  king,  and 
the  power  of  judge,  and  the  name  of  God."  || 

No  one  can  read  these  extracts,  we  think,  without  perceiv- 
ing that  here  are  two  beings,  entirely  distinct,  one  fii'st  and 
supreme,  the  other  subordinate  ;  one  giving,  the  other  receiv- 
ing. The  union  between  the  two  is  thus  explained  by  Lac- 
tantius. He  takes  the  example  of  a  father  and  son  occupying 
the  same  house,  the  son  remaining  subject  to  the  father. 
Though  the  father  grants  the  name  and  authority  of  master 

*  Inst.,  iv.  6.  t  Ihid;  iv.  8.  t  I^»d;  n.  9. 

§  "  Median!  inter  Deum  et  hominem  substantiam  gereus."  —  Inst.,  iv   13. 
U  InM.,  iv.  13,  14, 


238  WRITERS    BETWEEN    ORIGEN    AND    ARIUS. 

to  the  son,  yet,  as  they  are  perfectly  united  in  will  and  con- 
sent, we  may  say  that  there  is  but  one  house  and  one  master. 
"  So,"  he  proceeds,  "  this  world  is  one  house,  and  the  Son  and 
Father  who  inhabit  it  and  are  of  one  mind,  are  one  God  ;  for 
one  is  as  both,  and  both  are  as  one.  Nor  is  there  anything 
surprising  in  this :  since  the  Son  is  in  the  Father,  because  the 
Father  loves  the  Son ;  and  the  Father  in  the  Son,  because  the 
Son  faithfully  obeys  the  will  of  the  Father,  nor  ever  does  nor 
did  anything  except  what  the  Father  has  willed  or  com- 
manded." *  Here  is  no  trace  of  the  later  orthodoxy.  Ac- 
cording to  Lactantius,  the  only  union  between  the  Father  and 
Son  is  one  of  will  and  affection.  He  calls  the  Son  God,  but 
speaks  of  him  as  "  created,"  and  as  possessing  only  derived 
dignity  and  power.  The  Son,  he  says,  merited  the  title  of 
God,  "  on  account  of  the  virtue  he  taught  and  exemplified." 
"  On  account  of  the  virtue  and  fidelity  he  exhibited  on  earth 
there  are  given  him  a  kingdom  and  honor  and  dominion,  that 
all  people  and  tribes  and  tongues  should  serve  him.f 

We  might  quote  more  to  the  same  purpose  ;  but  the  above 
is  sufiScient  to  show  the  views  Lactantius  entertained  of  the 
inferior  and  derived  nature  and  dignity  of  the  Son.  He  knew 
nothing  of  the  atonement  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term. 
Christ  died  and  rose  again,  he  tells  us,  that  he  might  "give 
man  the  hope  of  overcoming  death,  and  conduct  him  to  the 
I'ewards  of  immortality."  J  "  In  some  of  his  books,  and  espe- 
cially in  his  Epistles  to  Demetrian  [now  lost],  he.  utterly 
denies,"  as  Jerome  testifies,  "  the  personality  of  the  Spirit ; 
referring  it,  after  the  manner  of  the  Jews,  either  to  the  Father 
or  the  Son."  §  Many,  says  the  same  writer,  asserted  along 
with  him  that  the  Holy  Spii'it  is  not  a  substance,  but  a  name. 
Lactantius  sometimes  confounds  it  with  the  Logos. 

Sucli  was  the  orthodoxy  of  the  age  ;  and  it  was  but  one 
step  removed  from  Arianism.  Tlie  points  of  difference  and 
identity  we  shall  hereafter  attempt  to  indicate.  We  proceed 
in  our  next  chapter  to  our  historical  details. 

*  lust,  iv.  29  t  Ibid.,  iv.  16,  25,  12. 

\  Ibid.,  iv.  10.  §  Epist.  41,  al.  65,  ad  Paramach.  et  Ocean. 


ARIUS,  AND  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Conflict  of  Doctrine. — Belief  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers.— 
Account  OF  Arius.  —  Origin  of  the  Controversy.  —  Popularity 
OF  Arius.  —  His  Person  and  Manners.  —  Progress  of  the  Contro- 
versy.—  Arius  is  expelled  from  Alexandria,  and  retires  to  Pal- 
estine.  How  RECEIVED   BY  THE  BiSHOPS  THERE.  —  EuSEBIUS  OF  NlCO- 

MEDiA.  —  Palestinian  Council.' — Arius's  Letter  to  his  Bishop. — 
Alexander  writes  Letters  to  all  Parts.  —  Tongues  instead  of 
Spears. 

There  is  a  lull :  but  the  calm  is  soon  to  end ;  the  sky  is  to 
be  darkened,  and  the  winds  are  to  be  up.  A  stern  conflict  is 
commencing  in  the  theological  world,  —  the  old  world  of  the 
Fathers.  Opinions  are  to  be  sifted,  examined,  defined  ;  the 
past  is  to  be  questioned  ;  new  ideas  are  to  be  thrown  out,  new 
controversies  to  arise.  The  old  ways  are  to  be  forsaken,  and 
untrodden  paths  to  be  tried.  Arius  and  Athanasius  —  resolute 
spirits  both  —  are  to  come  upon  the  stage.  The  head  of  the 
Roman  Empire  is  to  become  Christian,  and  to  mediate,  and 
mediate  in  vain.  The  wound  is  never  to  be  healed.  Antiquity 
is  to  be  appealed  to,  and  its  opinions  are  to  go  down,  so  far 
as  authority  can  crush  them ;  and  dogmas,  unknown  to  the 
Fathers,  are  to  be  enthroned  in  human  belief. 

The  "Arian  impiety,"  as  the  enemies  of  Arius  called  it, 
first  appeared  on  the  banks  of  the  Nile  ;  and  the  Devil,  envi- 
ous of  the  prosperity  of  the  clmrch  under  the  first  Christian 
emperor,  they  said,  sowed  the  seeds  of  it.  All  the  ante-Ni- 
cene  Fathers,  however,  admitted  the  inferiority  of  the  Son  to 
the  Father.  This  implied,  that,  in  their  opinion,  they  were 
two  essences,  which  some  of  them  distinctly  assert.  It  is  true, 
the  learned  Platonizing  Fathers  sometimes  use  expressions 
which  now  bear  an  orthodox  sense ;  and  it  is  hastily  inferred, 


240  ARIUS,  AND    THE    ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

therefore,  that  they  were  orthodox  in  the  modern  signification 
of  the  term.  But  nothing  couhl  be  further  from  the  truth.  A 
very  moderate  acquaintance  with  the  remains  of  Christian 
antiquity  must,  we  think,  convince  any  unprejudiced  mind, 
that  the  language  in  question  was  used  by  the  Fathers  in  a 
sense  totally  different  from  that  now  attributed  to  it.  If  we 
go  on  the  assumption  that  they  employed  it  in  the  modern 
sense,  we  shall  mistake  their  sentiments  at  every  step.  Thus 
they  occasionally  make  use  of  a  phraseology,  which,  in  the 
mouth  of  a  modern  Trinitarian,  would  imply  a  belief  that  the 
Son  is  of  one  numerical  essence  with  the  Father.  But  this 
they  never  thought  of  asserting.  The  most  they  meant  to 
affirm  was,  that  the  Son,  as  begotten  of  God,  partook  in  some 
sort  of  the  same  specific  nature  (that  is,  a  divine),  just  as  an 
individual  of  our  race  partakes*  of  the  same  nature  or  essence 
with  the  parent  from  whom  he  sprung  (that  is,  a  human).  At 
the  same  time,  they  taught  that  he  was  relatively  inferior  to 
the  Father,  from  whom  he  was  derived,  and  entitled  to  only 
inferior  homage.  He  was  not  uncaused,  as  the  Father  was.  He 
had  a  beginning  :  the  Father  had  none.  He  was  the  minister 
of  the  Father,  and  in  all  things  subject  to  his  Avill.  This  all 
asserted,  if  we  except  Origen,  who  differed  from  others  by 
indulging  in  some  subtile  and  obscure  speculations  in  regard 
to  a  "  becinnino-less  "  creation,  and  "  beoinningless  generation 
of  the  Son." 

The  incidents  of  the  life  of  Arius,  before  he  promulgated 
his  obnoxious  sentiments,  so  far  as  preserved,  are  soon  related. 
Epiphanius  tells  us  that  he  was  said  to  have  come  from  Libya, 
"  a  part  of  Africa,"  says  the  pious  Maimbourg,  "  beyond  all 
other,  fruitful  of  monsters ;  for  before  this  time  it  produced  the 
heretic  Sabellius."  From  an  expression  in  one  of  liis  own  let- 
ters, it  has  been  inferred  that  his  father's  name  was  Ammo- 
nius  ;  but  this  is  matter  of  doubt.  1  le  was  made  deacon  by 
Peter,  then  Bishop  of  Alexandria  ;  but  afterwards  incurred  his 
displeasure  by  the  freedom  he  took  in  censuring  his  conduct  in 
regard  to  the  Meletians,  which  Arius,  who  is  accused  of  hav- 
ing been  formerly  too  partial  to  the  sect,  thought  ilhberal  and 
harsh.  For  this  offence  he  was  excommunicated.  Under 
Achillas,  the  successor  of  Peter,  he  was,  as  Sozomen  informs 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY.  241 

US,  restored,  and  promoted  to  the  rank  of  presbyter.  Achillas 
was  soon  succeeded  by  Alexander,  and  Arius  for  some  time 
enjoyed  his  confidence  and  friendship.  He  had  the  care  of 
a  parish  church  in  Alexandria,  called  Baucalis,*  where  he 
preached,  and  had  full  liberty  to  declare  his  sentiments.f 

Theodoret  says  that  he  was  intrusted  with  the  exposition 
of  the  Scriptures,  which  has  led  to  the  supposition  that  he  was 
once  connected  with  the  Catechetical  School ;  but  of  this  there 
is  no  satisfactory  evidence.  It  is  said  that  he  taught  not  only 
in  his  church,  but  in  private  ;  and  he  was  accused  by  his  enemies 
of  going  from  house  to  house  in  the  endeavor  to  "  draw  men 
over  to  his  sentiments."  These  are  base  charges,  which  may 
mean  nothing  more  than  that  he  faithfully  performed  his  pas- 
toral duties,  which  was  to  his  credit. 

Of  the  origin  of  his  controversy  with  his  bishop,  accounts 
in  some  respects  differ.  Sozomen  1^  tells  us,  and  Epiphanius, 
as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  intimates  the  same,  that  Alexander 
did  not  interfere  for  some  time  after  Arius  began  to  divulge  his 
novel  opinions  ;  that  he  was  blamed  for  his  neglect  or  forbear- 
ance ;  that  in  consequence  of  the  complaints  of  the  enemies  of 
Arius,  or  of  those  who  rejected  his  opinions,  he  was  at  length 
induced  to  appoint  successively  two  conferences,  at  which  Arius 
and  his  opponents  discussed  the  question  at  issue ;  that  Alex- 
ander was  for  a  time  in  some  suspense,  inclining  "  first  to  one 
party,  and  then  to  the  other  " ;  but  that  he  finally  decided 
against  the  presbyter. 

This,  however,  seems  to  be  a  somewhat  imperfect  account 
of  the  matter.  According  to  other  authorities,  some  of  them 
entitled  to  full  as  much  credit,  Alexander  himself,  by  his  inno- 
vations and  extravagances,  furnished  occasion  of  the  dispute. 
Constantine  certainly,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  parties,§ 
throws  the  blame  on  Alexander,  whom  he  accuses  of  troubling 
his  priests  with  foolish  and  unprofitable  questions,  which  should 
never  have  been  asked  ;  or,  if  asked,  ought  not  to  have  been 
answered.     Socrates  ||  and  Theodoret,^  in  the  main,  confirm 

*  The  oldest  in  the  city,  containing,  it  is  said,  the  tomb  of  St.  Mark ;  and 
in  it  took  place  the  election  of  the  Patriarch, 
t  Epiphan.  Hcer.,  Ixix. ;  Theod.  Hist.,  lib.  i.  c.  2. 

$  Hist.,  lib.  i.  c.  15.  §  Euseb.  Vita  Const.,  ii,  69. 

II  Lib.  i.  c.  5.  TF  Lib.  i.  c.  2. 

16 


242        ARIUS,  AND  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

this  statement.  According  to  the  former,  Alexander  having 
one  day  discoursed  with  a  Httle  too  much  subtilty  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Trinity  in  the  presence  of  his  clergy,  Arius  thought 
that  his  language  savored  of  Sabellianism,  and,  in  arguing 
against  him,  went  to  the  opposite  extreme.  Arius,  too,  in  his 
letter  to  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  still  extant,*  represents  Alex- 
ander as  an  innovator ;  and  if  the  expressions  he  attributes  to 
him  were  really  his,  which  we  see  no  reason  to  doubt,  he  cer- 
tainly was  so.  Thus :  "  Always  God,  always  the  Son  ;  as  the 
Father,  so  is  the  Son ;  the  Son  is  unbegotten  as  the  Father ; 
neither  in  thought,  nor  the  least  point  of  time,  does  God  pre- 
cede the  Son  ;  always  God,  always  the  Son." 

These  are  expressions  to  which  the  ears  even  of  the  ortho- 
dox were  then  unaccustomed.  Arius  says  he  could  not  assent 
to  them,  and  hence  was  driven  from  the  city  as  an  atheist, 
which  had  the  usual  effect  of  persecution,  for  it  only  added  to 
his  success  and  growing  influence. 

Arius  had  some  marked  intellectual  traits.  Neander  ascribes 
to  him  a  "  strong  predilection  for  logical  clearness  and  intel- 
ligibility." The  influence  of  the  Antiochian  School,  which 
entered  into  a  sharp  conflict  with  the  Sabellians,  could  be 
distinctly  traced  in  his  peculiar  exegetical  tendencies.  He 
possessed  great  logical  acumen,  which  gave  him  the  advantage 
in  argument. 

For  our  knowledge  of  his  person  and  habits  we  are  indebted 
mainly  to  the  representations  of  his  enemies.  These  repre- 
sentations contain  many  statements  and  admissions  in  the 
highest  degree  honorable  to  him.  They  are  vouchers  for  his 
integrity,  the  innocence  of  his  life,  and  his  many  estimable 
qualities,  which  endeared  him  to  multitudes  of  his  fellow- 
citizens  at  Alexandria,  and  procured  him  numerous  friends  in 
his  exile. 

He  is  said  to  have  been  an  old  man  when  the  controversy 
broke  out,  though  of  his  precise  age  we  know  nothing,  as  we 
have  not  the  date  of  his  birth.  But  he  had  probably  long 
passed  the  period  of  middle  life  at  least.  In  person  he  is  said 
to  have  been  very  tall,  of  a  lithe  frame  and  thin,  with  pensive 

*  Tlie  letter  is  found  in  Theod.,  lib.  i.  c.  5,  and  Epiphanius,  Hcer.,  Ixix.  c.  6, 
with  some  variation  ;  not,  however,  materially  affecting  the  sense. 


PERSON   AND   MANNERS   OF   ARIUS.  243 

and  somewhat  melancholy  features,  combined  with  a  peculiar 
sweetness  of  countenance  and  tones,  and  a  certain  fascination 
of  manner  which  it  was  difficult  to  resist.  He  was  fluent, 
bland,  and  persuasive  in  speech,  and  was  modestly  attired  in  a 
scanty  (Epiphanius  says  a  half)  cloak.*  The  females  of  Alex- 
andria were  strongly  inclined  to  his  side.  Among  the  devout 
women  of  the  place  he  had  seven  hundred  followers  clearly 
occupying  a  reputable  position,  and  a  fair  proportion  of  them, 
it  may  be  presumed,  possessing  intellectual  culture.  So  firm 
was  their  adhesion  to  him  that  nothing  —  no  force  nor  threats, 
and  no  fears  of  church  censure  —  could  induce  them  to  re- 
nounce him  or  his  opinions. 

The  above-mentioned  traits  of  his  person  and  manners  have 
been  transmitted  to  us  by  his  enemies.  As  a  matter  of  course, 
they  put  their  own  construction  on  his  conduct  and  motives, 
ascribing  to  him  jealousy,  restlessness,  and  ambition,  and  all 
the  subtlety  and  wiles  of  the  serpent,  by  which  he  deceived  the 
miwary,  drawing  them  over  to  his  opinions  and  making  them 
his  fast  friends.     His  adversaries  —  such  is  the  virulence  of 

*  In  describing  the  person  and  character  of  Arius  some  caution  is  necessary 
as  to  the  sources  whence  the  materials  are  drawn.  We  find  no  description  of 
his  person  in  any  contemporary  author.  Epiphanius  lived  in  the  fourth 
century,  was  narrow,  violent,  and  bigoted,  and  his  authority,  when  not  sup- 
ported by  other  writers,  is  not  above  suspicion.  He  is  often  inaccurate,  and 
was  especially  hostile  to  the  Arians  ;  and  what  he  says  of  the  founder  of  the 
sect,  therefore,  requires  to  be  carefully  sifted,  and  allowance  must  be  made  for 
the  force  of  prejudice.  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus,  as  an  authority,  is  nearly  worth- 
less. He  wrote  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth  century.  Portions  of  his  "Acts 
of  the  First  Council  "  Cave  believed  to  be  pure  inventions.  Tillemont, 
though  he  repeatedly  quotes  the  work,  yet  held  it  in  slight  esteem  ;  and  Du 
Pin  expresses  absolute  contempt  for  it.  In  the  third  book,  as  we  now  have 
it,  there  is  a  letter  ascribed  to  Constantine  ;  but  its  genuineness  is,  to  say  the 
least,  very  questionable,  and  it  is  a  document  entitled  to  no  respect.  The 
Oxford  translator  of  some  of  the  treatises  of  Athanasius  (J.  H.  Newman), 
speaks  of  it  as  an  "  invective,"  and  says  that  it  is  "  like  a  school  exercise  or 
fancy  composition,"  adding  that  it  is  "  inconsistent  with  itself"  (Lihrary  of 
the  Fathers,  viii.  183.)  Dr.  Stanley,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Eastern  Church," 
describes  it  as  "mixed  in  about  equal  proportions  of  puns  on  his  [Arius's] 
name,  of  jests  on  his  personal  appearance,  of  eager  attacks  upon  his  doctrine, 
and  of  supposed  prophecies  against  him  in  the  Sibylline  books."  Yet 
strangely  enough  he  has  made  use  of  it  in  the  very  extraordinary  portrait 
ne  has  drawn  of  the  Alexandrian  heresiarch.  See  an  article  on  Dr.  Stanley 
and  Arius  in  the  Christian  Examiner  (published  in  Boston)  for  March,  1862. 
[The  article  referred  to  was  written  by  Dr.  Lamson.  —  Ed.  ] 


244  ARIUS,    AND    THE   ARIAN   CONTBOVERSY. 

theological  prejudice  —  denounce  his  doctrines  as  blasphemous , 
and  there  is  no  epithet  of  abuse  they  do  not  heap  upon  him, 
except  only  that  they  accuse  him  of  no  immorality.  No  whisper 
of  impurity  of  life  has  come  down  to  us  from  the  many  enemies 
of  his  name  and  fame,  a  sure  proof  that  no  stain  rested  on  his 
character. 

To  his  other  qualities  he  added  great  earnestness.  He  was 
evidently  sincere  ;  he  abounded  in  zeal,  and  was  susceptible 
neither  of  being  intimidated  by  threats,  nor  lured  by  favor.  He 
possessed  the  courage  of  a  martyr  ;  and  sooner  than  profess  his 
assent  to  opinions  he  did  not  believe,  he  would  "  die,"  as  he 
says  in  his  letter  to  Eusebius,  "  a  thousand  deaths,"  The 
consequence  of  all  was,  he  was  now  immensely  popular,  and 
his  opinions  were  rapidly  spreading.  They  soon  diffused 
themselves  beyond  the  walls  of  Alexandria  into  Libya  and  the 
upper  Thebais,  as  they  subsequently  did  in  the  "  congenial 
atmosphere  "  of  Syria,  where  among  the  bishops,  as  Milman 
observes,  "  the  most  learned,  the  most  pious,  the  most  influen- 
tial, united  themselves  with  his  party." 

That  such  men  as  Alexander,  the  old  bishop,  and  the  young 
and  aspiring  Athanasius,  already  panting  for  distinction,  —  the 
passions  which  rendered  his  after-life  so  agitated  and  full  of 
strange  vicissitude  beginning  to  stir  in  his  breast,  —  should 
resolve  to  overthrow  this  popular  idol  who  stood  in  their  way, 
is  all  very  natural.  Athanasius  has  not  yet  appeared  on  the 
stage  ;  he  is  biding  his  time.  But  Alexander  is  now  all  zeal, 
Meletius,  at  this  time  the  enemy  of  Arius,  conveying,  if  we 
may  believe  Epiphanius,  complaints  to  his  ear,  which  served  to 
fan  the  growing  flame. 

Nor  is  this  statement  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  that 
Alexander  himself,  by  his  imprudence,  had  excited  the  contro- 
versy. Arius  might  have  believed  it  his  duty,  in  discharging 
his  office  as  pastor  and  teacher,  to  inculcate  what  he  conceived 
to  be  sound  views  of  Christian  doctrine  in  opposition  to  the 
rash,  and,  as  it  appeared  to  him,  novel  assertions  of  his  bishop ; 
and  the  latter,  if  acquainted  with  the  circumstance,  might  not 
have  thought  himself  called  upon  immediately  to  interpose.  A 
certain  latitude,  as  it  appears,  was  allowed  to  the  priests  of  the 
several  churches  of  Alexandria  in  the  expression  of  their  senti- 


PROGRESS   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY.  245 

meiits ,  and  it  might  not  at  first  have  been  clear  that  Arius  had 
exceeded  it.  Or,  if  he  had,  the  tide  was  as  yet  setting  in  his 
favor,  and  it  might  have  required  some  courage  to  stem  it. 

The  hesitation  ascribed  to  Alexander,  too,  may  be  accounted 
for,  in  part,  by  the  supposition,  that  the  change  which  his 
opinions  underwent  about  this  time  was  gradual,  and  that  he 
did  not  at  first  reach  the  exti'eme  point.  He  might,  originally, 
have  thrown  out  some  unadvised  expressions  concerning  the 
nature  of  the  Son  ;  though  he  as  yet  held,  in  the  main,  the 
popular  belief.  These  expressions  gave  rise  to  controversy  ; 
and,  upon  listening  to  a  discussion  of  the  subject,  the  bishop 
for  a  moment,  it  would  seem,  felt  embarrassed  by  the  weight 
of  authority  and  argument  which  Arius  was  able  to  bring  in 
support  of  his  views.  From  this  embarrassment,  however,  he 
soon  recovered.  Envy  of  the  popular  fame  of  Arius  (for  this 
passion  was  attributed  to  him)  might  have  caused  him  to  feel 
an  increased  aversion  to  his  sentiments  ;  and  the  progress  of  the 
controversy  served  still  further  to  separate  the  combatants,  till 
Alexander  was  led  to  express  himself  in  the  rash  manner  above 
related,  and  insist  that  all  his  clergy  should  echo  his  opinions. 
That  Alexander's  mind  went  through  some  such  process  as 
this,  there  can  be  little  doubt.  We  have  evidence  of  his 
change  of  sentiments,  not  only  from  the  testimony  of  Arius, 
but  from  his  own  writings.  Even  after  the  expulsion  of  Arius 
from  Alexandria,  he  continued  occasionally,  from  the  effect  of 
habit,  to  use  language  which  savored  strongly  of  the  old  school. 

But,  whatever  might  have  been  his  previous  views,  Alex- 
ander now  soon  showed  that  he  was  resolved  to  exert  his 
influence  and  authority  to  the  full.  He  first  makes  use  of 
counsel  and  admonition  ;  and  finally  "  commands  Arius  to  em- 
brace his  sentiments,"  and  discard  his  own.  But  Arius  was 
not  the  man  to  change  his  opinions,  or  profess  to  change  them, 
in  consequence  of  the  "  command "  of  a  spiritual  superior. 
Alexander,  as  Socrates  tells  its,*  now  becomes  enraged,  and, 
assembling  a  council  of  bishops  and  priests,  excommunicates 
him  and  his  followers,  and  he  is  ordered  to  leave  the  city.  We 
are  told  by  Arius,  in  the  letter  already  alluded  to,  that  Euse- 
bius  of  Csesarea,  and  several  others  whom  he  names,  and  "  all 
*  Hist.,  lib.  i.  c.  6. 


246  ARIUS,    AND   THE    ARIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

the  Oriental  bishops,"  since  tliey  asserted  that  "  the  Father 
existed  before  the  Son,  being  without  beginning,"  were 
anathematized,  except  only  Philogonius,  Hellanicus,  and  Ma- 
carius,  whom  he  pronounces  ignorant  heretics.  So  general,  at 
this  time,  was  the  leaning  towards  the  sentiments  of  Arius, 
who  is  said,  on  the  death  of  Achillas,  to  have  declined  the 
episcopal  dignity  in  the  metropolis  of  Egypt.* 

Arius  was  excommunicated  and  deposed,  as  is  generally 
supposed,  about  the  year  320  ;  Neander  says,  321.  After  he 
and  his  friends  had  been  expelled  from  the  Chm'ch,  many  of 
the  people,  as  Sozomen  informs  us,  still  adhered  to  him,  con- 
sisting partly  of  such  as  approved  his  opinions,  and  partly  of 
those  who  sympathized  with  his  hard  fate,  thinking  that  he  had 
been  harshly  treated  by  his  bishop. f  Arius  soon  after  retires 
into  Palestine,  visits  the  seA^eral  bishops  there,  and  endeavors 
to  procure  favor  for  himself  and  his  doctrine.  He  was  well 
received  by  some,  says  Epiphanius,  and  repulsed  by  others. 
Among  the  former  was  Eusebius  the  historian,  Bishop  of 
Csesarea.  It  was  while  residing  with  him,  if  Epiphanius  is  to 
be  trusted,  that  he  wrote  the  letter,  already  mentioned,  to  the 
Bishop  of  Nicomedia.     He  addresses  him  as  the  "  orthodox 

*  The  above  account,  meagre  as  it  is,  embraces  all  the  information  we  can 
collect  in  relation  to  the  origin  of  the  Arian  controversy.  Theodoret,  indeed, 
asserts  that  the  heresiarch  was  instigated  by  envy  and  disappointment ;  Alex- 
ander having  been  preferred  to  the  bishopric,  to  which  he  thought  he  had 
superior  claims.  But  of  this  he  offers  no  shadow  of  proof;  and  his  assertion 
is  contradicted  by  Philostorgius,  who  tells  us  (Hist.,  lib.  i.  c.  3)  that  Arius, 
seeing  the  votes  inclining  to  himself,  generously  caused  them  to  be  transferred 
to  his  rival.  The  truth  is,  Theodoret  was  a  man  of  violent  prejudices,  and  a 
great  bigot,  and  never  speaks  of  Arius  but  in  terms  of  extreme  acrimony. 

Philostorgius  was  an  Arian  historian  ;  and  it  would  be  satisfactory  to  be 
able  to  compare  his  statements  throughout  with  those  of  the  orthodox.  It  is 
always  well,  if  we  can,  to  hear  tiie  evidence  on  both  sides.  But  the  original 
work  of  Philostorgius  is  unfortunately  lost;  and  we  have  only  a  brief  abstract 
of  its  contents  by  the  orthodox  Pliotius,  who  shows  himself  exceedingly  bitter 
against  the  author.  His  ustial  manner  of  commencing  his  sections  is,  "the 
impious  Philostorgius,"  "this  enemy  of  God,"  "this  artificer  of  lies,"  "  this 
nretch,"  says  so  and  so.  The  little  we  have  of  him  gives  a  complexion  to  the 
liistory  of  the  times  very  different  from  what  it  assumes  in  the  narratives  of  the 
orthodox.  His  history  commences  with  the  rise  of  the  Arian  controversy, 
and  embraces  the  period  of  a  little  more  than  a  century,  including  his  own 
times. 

t  Hist,  lib.  i.  c.  15. 


EUSEBIUS   OF   NICOMEDIA.  247 

Eusebius,"  and  proceeds  with  much  brevity  and  neatness  to 
give  an  account  of  the  nature  and  result  of  his  controversy 
with  Alexander.  His  own  sentiments  are  stated  in  simple  and 
intelligible  language.  He  writes  with  feeling,  but  without 
bitterness. 

Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  was  distinguished  for  rank  and 
talents ;  and  the  circumstance  that  the  imperial  residence  was 
then  at  Nicomedia  gave  him  additional  influence.  Socrates 
complains  that  a  multitude  of  bishops  were  obsequious  to  him. 
He  became  the  personal  friend  of  Arius,  espoused  his  cause 
with  warmth,  and  proved  an  able  advocate  for  his  opinions. 
He  wrote  many  letters  in  his  favor  to  Alexander  and  others, 
and  from  this  time  may  be  regarded,  in  fact,  as  the  chief  of 
the  sect ;  and  hence  the  Arians  were  afterwards  often  called 
Eusebians.  One  of  his  letters,  addressed  to  Paulinus,  Bishop 
of  Tyre,  is  still  extant.*  It  was  written  soon  after  the  receipt 
of  Arius's  letter  just  mentioned  ;  and  is  particularly  valuable, 
as  it  contains  a  short  and  clear  exposition  of  his  own  views, 
and  of  the  generally  received  doctrine  concerning  the  nature  of 
the  Son.  "  He  never  heard,"  he  says,  "  that  there  were  two 
unbegotten.  We  affirm  that  there  is  one  unbegotten,  and 
another  who  did  in  truth  proceed  from  him,  yet  who  was  not 
made  out  of  his  substance,  and  who  does  not  at  all  participate 
in  the  nature  or  substance  of  him  who  is  unbegotten.  We 
believe  him  to  be  entirely  distinct  in  nature  and  in  power." 
The  letter  concludes  with  a  request  that  Paulinus  would  write 
to  Alexander,  and  induce  him,  if  possible,  to  relent.  Eusebius, 
besides,  assembled  a  provincial  council  in  Bithynia,  which 
undertook  the  defence  of  Arius,  and  endeavored  to  procure  his 
restoration  to  the  communion  of  the  churches,  and  particularly 
of  the  church  of  Alexandria. f 

But  Alexander  remained  inexorable.  As  in  the  days  of 
Origen,  however,  there  was  a  degree  of  freedom  and  liberality 
in  Palestine  which  did  not  exist  in  Egypt ;  and  at  Arius's 
request,  several  of  the  bishops  there,  Eusebius  of  Caesarea 
among  the  rest,  met  in  council,  and  authorized  him  and  his 
fellow-presbyters  in  exile  to  collect  their  adherents,  and  preach 
to  them,  and  perform  all  the  functions  of  presbyters  as  they 
*  Theod.,  lib.  i.  c.  6.  f  Sozomen,  lib.  i.  c.  16. 


248  ARIUS,    AND   THE   ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

had  been  accustomed  to  do  at  Alexandria.*  Arius,  it  seems, 
after  he  left  Palestine,  passed  some  time  with  his  friend  at 
Nicomedia.  While  there,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  his  bishop, 
which  has  been  preserved.  In  this  letter — which,  throughout, 
breathes  a  temperate  spirit  —  he  gives  at  some  length  his 
views  of  the  Father  and  Son,  and  says,  "  Our  faith  we  have 
received  from  ti-adition,  and  learned  from  you."  Again :  that 
the  Father  existed  before  the  Son,  he  says,  "  is  M^hat  we 
learned  of  you,  who  preached  it  in  the  midst  of  the  church." 
The  letter  was  signed  by  Arius  and  five  other  priests,  six 
deacons,  and  two  bishops.f  We  have  before  alluded  to  the 
change  of  sentiment  attributed  to  Alexander.  We  will  simply 
add  in  this  place,  that  the  Arians  constantly  appealed  to  tra- 
dition as  in  their  favor,  and  asserted  that  they  held  the  ancient 
doctrine.  This  assertion  must  not  be  taken  in  the  most  rigid 
sense ;  though,  to  a  certain  extent,  it  Avas  true.     The  Arians 

*  Sozomen,  lib.  i.  c.  15. 

t  The  letter  is  given  by  Epiphanius  (Hcer.  Ixix.  cc.  7,8),  and,  nearly  entire, 
by  Athanasius  (De  Syn.  Arim.  el  Seleiic,  c.  16.)  We  subjoin  the  first  half  of  it 
in  Newman's  translation  {Lib.  of  the  Fa^^ers,  viii.  96-98).  "Our  faith  from 
our  forefathers,  which  also  we  have  learned  from  thee,  Blessed  Pope,  [Papa,] 
is  this:  —  We  acknowledge  one  God,  alone  Ingenerate,  alone  Everlasting, 
alone  Unoriginate,  alone  True,  alone  having  Immortality,  alone  Wise,  alone 
Good,  alone  Sovereign  ;  Judge,  Governor,  and  Providence  of  all,  unalterable 
and  unchangeable,  just  and  good,  God  of  Law  and  Prophets  and  New  Testa- 
ment ;  who  generated  an  Only-begotten  Son  before  eternal  times,  through 
whom  he  has  made  both  the  ages  and  the  universe  ;  and  generated  him,  not 
in  semblance,  but  in  truth  ;  and  that  he  made  him  subsist  at  his  own  will 
unalterable  and  unchangeable  ;  perfect  creature  of  God,  but  not  as  one  of  the 
creatures  ;  offspring,  but  not  as  one  of  things  generated ;  not  as  Valentinus 
pronounced  that  the  offspring  of  the  Father  was  an  issue ;  nor  as  Manichaeus 
taught  that  the  offspring  was  a  portion  of  the  Father,  one  in  substance  ;  or  as 
Sabellius,  dividing  the  One,  speaks  of  a  Son-and-Father  ;  nor  as  Hieracas,  of 
one  torch  from  another,  or  as  a  lamp  divided  into  two  ;  nor  of  him  who  was 
before,  being  afterwards  generated  or  new-created  into  a  Son,  as  thou,  too, 
thyself.  Blessed  Pope,  in  the  midst  of  the  church  and  in  session  hast  often  con- 
demned ;  but  as  we  say,  at  tiie  will  of  God,  created  before  times  and  before 
ages,  and  gaining  life  and  being  from  the  Father,  who  gave  subsistence  to  his 
glories  together  with  him.  For  the  Fatlier  did  not,  in  giving  to  him  the 
inheritance  of  all  things,  deprive  himself  of  what  he  has  ingenerately  in  him- 
self; for  he  is  the  fountain  of  all  things."  In  the  remaining  part  of  the  letter 
it  is  asserted  that  the  Son  is  ''not  eternal  or  co-eternal  with  the  Father"; 
"  God  is  before  all  things  as  being  a  One  and  an  origin  of  all.  Wherefore  he 
is  before  the  Son  ;  as  we  have  learned  also  from  thy  preaching  in  the  midst 
of  the  church." 


CONDUCT    OF    THE   PARTIES.  249 

could  quote  passages  from  the  old  writers,  exceedingly  embar- 
rassing to  their  opponents.  On  some  points,  as  the  supremacy 
of  the  Father  and  his  priority  of  existence,  tradition  was  clearly 
in  their  favor ;  and  they  could  say,  with  truth,  that  they  held 
the  old  faith.  The  new  doctrine  embraced  by  the  orthodox 
concerning  the  generation  of  the  Son,  they  said,  was  pure 
Manicheism  and  Valentinianism. 

But  to  return.  While  Arius  was  thus  employed,  Alexan- 
der, too,  was  busy  in  writing  letters  to  all  parts,  cautioning  the 
bishops  against  showing  any  favor  to  him  or  his  doctrines. 
Of  these,  Epiphanius  tells  us,  about  seventy  existed  in  his 
time.  Two  of  them  are  still  extant,  —  one  in  Socrates,*  and 
the  other  in  Theodoret.f  They  are  written  with  no  little 
acrimony,  and,  we  are  constrained  to  say,  form  an  unfavor- 
able contrast  with  those  of  Arius.  In  one  of  them,  addressed 
to  Alexander,  Bishop  of  Byzantium,  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia 
comes  in  for  a  large  share  of  abuse.  In  fact,  Alexander  spares 
no  effort  to  render  the  whole  party  odious.  He  calls  them 
"apostates,"  "impious,"  "enemies  of  Christ,"  the  most  auda- 
cious of  all  the  corrupters  of  Christianity ;  causing  "  all  pre- 
ceding heresies  to  appear  in  comparison  innocent,"  such  were 
the  blasphemies  they  uttered  wherever  they  went.  He  was 
"  troubled,"  he  says,  "  at  the  destruction  of  these  men  "  ;  but, 
he  adds,  "  The  same  thing  befell  Hymenaeus  and  Philetus,  and, 
before  them,  Jiidas."  They  were  the  men,  he  says,  whose 
coming  was  predicted  by  our  Saviour,  and  who  should  "  deceive 
many";  the  same  also  to  whom  St.  Paul  alluded,  "  who  should 
depart  from  the  faith,  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits,  and  doc- 
trines of  devils  ;  hating  the  truth." 

Eusebius  was  still  further  provoked,  and  the  war  of  words 
continued.  Numerous  letters  were  written  by  the  friends  and 
enemies  of  Arius.  He  collected  and  preserved  those  written 
in  his  defence,  as  did  Alexander  those  written  against  him ; 
and  they  were  afterwards  appealed  to  by  different  parties  as 
authoritative  documents. $ 

The  dispute,  by  this  time,  had  become  a  serious  matter. 
Prelates  contended  in  the  churches,  the  people  were  rent  into 
factions,  and  all  places  were  filled  with  discord  and  tumult. 

*  Lib.  i.  c.  6.  t  Lib.  i.  c.  4.  t  Soc,  lib.  i.  c.  6. 


250  ARIUS,    AND    THE    ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

Embassies  were  sent  into  all  the  provinces,  men's  passions  be- 
came more  and  more  inflamed  from  day  to  day,  and  the  whole 
empire  exhibited  a  scene  of  violence  and  strife.  "  They  fought 
against  each  other,"  says  Theodoret,  "  with  their  tongues  in- 
stead of  spears."  *  Even  Pagans  were  scandalized,  and  their 
theatres  resounded  with  ridicule  of  the  Christians.! 

*  Lib.  i.  c.  6.  t  Euseb.  Vita  Const.,  ii.  61. 


COUNCIL   OP   NICE.  251 


CHAPTER    11. 

CONSTANTINE      INTERFERES.   —  COONCIL     OF     NiCE.  ItS      ChAHACTER. — 

Opinions   of   Arius.  —  Procekdings  of  the  Council. — Difficulty 

IN    FRAMING    A    SyMBOL. EuSEBIUS    OF     CiESAREA    OFFERS    A    CrEED.  — 

Result.  —  Nonsubscriding  Bishops.  —  Condemnation  and  Exile  of 
Arius.  —  Constantine  afterwards  espouses  his  Cause.  —  His  re- 
turn to  Alexandria.  —  Athanasius.  —  Council  of  Jerusalem  re- 
admits Arius  to  Communion.  —  Exile  of  Athanasius.  —  Last  Days 
of  Arius.  —  Death,  Character,  and  Writings. —  The  "Thalia." 

Constantine  was  now  induced  to  interfere,  and  sent  Ho- 
sius,  Bishop  of  Cordova,  to  Alexandria  with  the  letter  before 
mentioned,  designed  to  soften  the  feelings  of  the  parties,  and, 
if  possible,  restore  harmony.  He  blames  all  concerned,  but 
especially  Alexander  ;  and  represents  the  question  at  issue  as 
very  frivolous,  —  a  mere  dispute  about  words.*  They  did  not 
in  reality  differ  in  sentiment,  he  tells  them  ;  certainly  not  in 
any  important  particular.  They  might  think  indifferently  on 
some  minute  points  ;  but  this  need  not  prevent  union  ;  they 
should,  in  such  a  case,  keep  their  thoughts  to  themselves. 
Finally,  he  beseeches  them  to  forget  and  forgive,  and  thus 
"  restore  to  him  serene  days,  and  nights  void  of  care  "  ;  for 
their  contentions  had  caused  him  "excessive  grief." 

But  the  evil  was  of  too  great  magnitude  to  be  thus  re- 
pressed. The  letter  produced  no  effect.  Alexander  was 
inflexible  ;  and  the  Arians,  though  asking  only  for  toleration, 
refused  to  retract,  and  the  dispute  ran  higher  than  ever.  A 
question  arose,  too,  about  the  time  of  keeping  Easter,  which, 
though  it  excited  little  interest  in  the  West,  occasioned  no 
small  contention  in  the  East.  The  emperor,  despairing  of  any 
other  remedy,  now  resolves  to  summon  a  general  council. 

It  was  the  wish  of  Constantine  that  the   bishops  from  all 

*  Some  orthodox  writers  have  been  shocked  that  Constantine  should  have 
made  light  of  so  serious  a  matter ;  and  have  supposed,  says  Dr.  Jortin,  that, 
when  he  wrote  the  letter,  "  he  had  some  evil  counsellor  at  his  elbow,  either 
Satan  or  Eusebius."    He  certainly  had  the  orthodox  Hosius  at  his  elbow. 


252  ARIUS,    AND    THE   ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

parts  of  the  empire  should  attend  ;  and,  that  there  might  be 
no  unnecessary  delay,  those  who  had  not  ready  means  of  con- 
veyance were  authorized  to  make  use  of  post-horses  and  public 
vehicles.  Thither  they  came  from  the  various  provinces, 
accompanied  by  a  multitude  of  priests,  deacons,  and  others. 
The  number  of  bishops  present  is  variously  stated  by  historians. 
Eusebius  says  it  exceeded  two  hundred  and  fifty ;  *  or  as  Soc- 
rates, who  quotes  the  passage,  gives  it,  three  hundred.  Con- 
stantine  makes  it  three  hundred  and  upwards  ;  and  Athanasius, 
three  hundred  and  eighteen,  or,  as  he  expresses  himself  in  an- 
other place,  about  three  hundred.  Theodoret  gives  three  hun- 
dred and  eighteen ;  which  is  the  number  generally  adopted. f 
Their  number  is  of  less  consequence  than  their  character. 
Eusebius  extols  them  for  learning  and  other  eminent  qual- 
ities ;  but  Sabinus,  a  Macedonian  Bishop  of  Heraclea,  in  his 
collection  of  the  "Acts  of  Councils,"  calls  them  stupid  and 
illiterate.^  Neither  the  praise  nor  the  censure  was  probably, 
in  its  full  extent,  deserved.  The  members  of  the  council 
were,  no  doubt,  what  assemblies  of  divines  have  usually  been, 
—  some  ignorant ;  some  crafty  ;  some  having  in  view  the  grati- 
fication of  private  feelings  or  the  advancement  of  personal 
interests ;  some  weak ;  some  passionate ;  some  arbitrary  and 
domineering ;  some  indolent,  timid,  and  yielding ;  a  few  wise 
and  modest ;  but  more,  empty,  conceited,  and  noisy.  So  it 
was  with  the  Fathers  of  Nice.  With  regard  to  the  charge 
of  Sabinus,  Socrates  gets  them  off'  by  saying  that  they  were 
supernaturally  illuminated ;  so  their  original  deficiencies  ought 
not  to  impair  our  reverence  for  their  decisions. 

The  council  met  about  the  middle  of  June,  a.  d.  325  ;  and 
there  were  present,  besides  Christians,  several  Pagan  philoso- 
phers, some  of  them  attracted,  no  doubt,  by  curiosity,  and 
others,  as  Sozomen  says,§  burning  with  a  desire  to  encounter 
the  Christians  in  argument,  being  enraged  against  them  on 
account  of  the  recent  overthrow  of  Paganism. 

As  the  subject  which  chiefly  engaged  the  attention  of  the 
council  had  reference  to  Arius  and  his  opinions,  this  may  be 
the  proper  time  to  state  what  those  opinions  were,  and  in  what 

*  Vita  Const.,  iii.  8  ;  Soc,  lib.  i.  c.  8.  t  Lib.  i.  c.  7. 

t  Soc,  lib.  i.  c.  8.  §  Lib.  i.  c.  18. 


OPINIONS    OF    ARIUS.  253 

respect  they  differed  from  those  of  the  learned  Fathers  who 
preceded  him.  The  strict  and  proper  inferiority  of  the  Son, 
as  we  have  shown,  was  asserted  by  all  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers. 
Further:  it  was  believed  by  those  Fathers  (Origen  excepted) 
that  the  Son  was  begotten  in  time,  and  not  from  eternity.  So 
far,  Arius  trod  in  their  steps.  But  then  the  Fathers  had  some 
mystical  notions,  derived  from  the  later  Platonists,  about  the 
origin  of  the  Son,  who,  as  they  supposed,  had  a  sort  of  meta- 
physical existence  in  the  Father  from  eternity ;  in  other  words, 
existed  as  his  Logos,  Wisdom,  or  Reason ;  that  is,  as  an  attri- 
bute, which  was  afterwards  converted  into  a  real  person  by  a 
voluntary  act  of  the  Father.  This  Platonic  mysticism,  Arius, 
who  was  remarkably  clear-headed,  discarded ;  and  this  was  the 
grand  point  of  distinction  between  the  doctrine  of  Arius  and 
that  of  the  Fathers,  —  a  distinction  which  would  seem  at  first 
view,  as  Constantine  originally  considered  it,  to  be  of  a  some- 
what shadowy  nature,  but  yet  a  real  one.* 

The  characteristic  dogma  of  Arius  was,  that  the  Son  was 
originally  produced  out  of  nothing ;  and,  consequently,  there 
was  a  time  when  he  did  not  exist.  He  maintained  that  he 
was  a  great  preexistent  spirit,  —  the  first  and  chief  of  all 
derived  beings ;  that  this  spirit  became  afterwards  united  with 
a  human  body,  and  supplied  the  place  of  the  rational  soul. 
Some  of  the  preceding  Fathers  attributed  a  human  soul  as 
well  as  body  to  Jesus ;  which,  however,  was  so  absorbed  in 
the  divine  part  of  his  nature,  that  they  were,  in  a  strict  sense, 
one  spirit,  and  not  two,  as  modern  Trinitarians  affirm  or  im- 

*  The  difTerence,  we  say,  was  a  real  one ;  yet,  independently  of  the  direct 
testimony  heretofore  adduced,  the  whole  aspect  of  the  controversy  before  the 
Council  of  Nice  shows  that  the  old  doctrine  was  on  the  confines  of  Arianism. 
Hence  the  perplexity  into  which  a  large  part  of  the  Christian  world  was 
thrown  on  the  first  publication  of  the  opinions  of  Arius,  and  their  rapid  diffu- 
sion over  Egypt  and  the  several  provinces  of  the  East.  The  Oriental  bishops 
generally,  as  above  stated,  and  two  councils  (one  in  Bithynia,  and  the  other 
in  Palestine),  favored  them;  and  the  supporters  and  friends  of  Arius  were 
among  the  best  and  most  learned  men  of  tiie  age.  Add  the  indecision  attrib- 
uted to  Alexander,  and  the  impression  of  Constantine  that  the  controversy  was 
a  very  frivolous  one,  which,  we  have  a  right  to  infer,  was  also  the  impression 
of  Hosius,  who  was  then  in  his  confidence,  and,  no  doubt,  one  of  his  advisers. 
These  facts  afford  pretty  decisive  evidence,  had  we  no  other,  that  the  line  be- 
tween the  old  and  new  opinions,  though  visible,  was  not  a  very  broad  one ; 
and  that  Arius,  in  fact,  did  little  more  than  reject  a  metaphysical  subtilty. 


254  ARIUS,    AND    THE    ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

ply.  Such  was  Origen's  opinion.  According  to  the  theology 
of  Arius,  however,  the  human  soul  was  wanting  in  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  he  was  a  compound  being  only  in  the  sense  in 
which  all  human  beings  are  :  that  is,  he  consisted  of  a  body, 
and  one  simple,  undivided,  and  finite  spirit.  "  We  believe," 
says  he,  "  and  teach,  that  the  Son  is  not  unbegotten,  nor  in 
any  manner  part  of  the  Unbegotten ;  that  he  was  not  made 
of  matter  subsisting,  but,  by  wull  and  counsel  [tliat  is,  of  the 
Father],  existed  before  the  times  and  the  ages,  full,  only- 
begotten  God,  unalterable  :  who,  before  he  was  begotten,  or 
created,  or  purposed,  or  constituted,  was  not ;  for  he  is  not  un- 
begotten." This  language  occurs  in  his  letter  to  Eusebius.* 
Similar  language,  but  more  precise  and  pointed  still,  occurs  in 
the  letter  to  Alexander  before  quoted. f  We  add  a  short  extract 
from  the  "  Thalia,"  as  quoted  by  Athanasius.^  Thus,  "  God 
was  not  always  a  Father,  but  there  was,  when  God  was  alone, 
and  was  not  yet  Father  :  the  Son  was  not  always.  For  all 
things  being  made  out  of  nothing,  and  all  creatures  and  works 
being  made,  the  Word  of  God  himself  was  made  out  of  nothing, 
and  once  he  was  not ;  he  was  not  before  he  was  begotten." 
Such  was  the  belief  of  Arius.  He  was  accused  by  his  ene- 
mies —  Alexander,  Athanasius,  and  others  —  of  teaching  that 
the  Son,  who  possesses  free  will,  is  by  nature  mutable  like 
ourselves,  that  is,  we  suppose,  theoretically.  Absolute  immu- 
tability can  be  predicated  of  One  only,  —  the  Infinite  and 
Eternal.  But  the  Son,  as  Arius  taught,  is  by  his  own  will 
unchangeable,  ever  remaining  unalterably  good. 

We  will  add  here  some  statements  of  Neander  —  confirma- 
tory of  our  own  —  respecting  the  opinions  of  Arius,  and  their 
relation  to  the  belief  of  preceding  ages.  Arius  was  not  "  dis- 
posed," he  says,  "to  establish  a  new  dogma."  "Arius  cer- 
tainly did  not  believe  that  he  was  preaching  a  new  doctrine, 
but  only  bringing  out  and  establishing  the  old  church  subordi- 
nation system."  He  quotes  Arius  as  saying  "  We  must  either 
suppose  two  divine  original  essences  without  beginning,  and 
independent  of  each  other;  or  we  must  not  shrink  from  assert- 
ing that  the  Logos  had  a  beginning  of  his   existence  ;    that 

*  Epiphanius,  Hair.  Ixix.  c.  6.  }  See  before,  p.  248,  note, 

t  Oral.  i.  cont.  Arian.,  §  5.  ( 


STATEMENTS    OF    NEANDER.  255 

there  was  a  moment  when  he  did  not  as  yet  exist."  "  Those 
passages  of  the  New  Testament  in  which  he  beheved  he  found 
the  expression  '  made '  appKed  to  Christ  (as  Acts  ii.  36,  and 
Heb.  Hi.  2),  or  in  which  he  is  styled  the  'First-born,'  he 
could,"  says  Neander,  "  cite  in  favor  of  his  theory."  "  He 
intended  by  no  means  to  lower  the  dignity  of  Christ,  but 
would  ascribe  to  him  the  greatest  dignity  which  a  being  could 
have  after  God,  without  entirely  annihilating  the  distinction 
between  that  being  and  God.  God  created  him  or  begat  him, 
...  a  being  as  like  to  himself  in  perfections  as  any  creature 
can  be,  for  the  purpose  of  producing,  by  the  instrumentality 
of  this  being,  the  whole  creation."  This  was  the  old  doctrine. 
Still,  the  distance  between  a  creature  and  the  Creator  must  be 
infinite.  This  Arius  did  not  "  shrink  from  expressing."  But, 
Neander  adds,  "  This,  in  fact,  Origen  had  already  expressed 
in  affirming,  that,  as  God  is,  in  essence,  infinitely  exalted  above 
all  created  beings,  so  too,  in  essence,  he  was  infinitely  exalted 
above  the  highest  of  created  beings,  —  the  Son ;  and  the  lat- 
ter, in  essence,  could  not  at  all  be  compared  with  him." 
Arius  attributed  to  the  Son  a  "  moral  immutability  of  will." 
He  doubtless  "  believed  that  he  was  maintaining  the  ancient 
doctrine  of  the  church."  "  He  Avas  intending  simply  to  de- 
fend the  old  doctrine."  So  little  difference  was  there,  accord- 
in  o-  to  Neander,  between  the  doctrine  of  Arius  and  that  of 
preceding  ages.* 

One  word  here  in  regard  to  time.  Time  Is  measured  by 
sun,  moon,  and  stars.  The  expressions  "  before  time  and  the 
ages,"  or  "  when  time  was  not,"  as  used  by  the  old  Christian 
writers,  then,  means  before  the  existence  of  the  material  uni- 
verse, when  as  yet  there  was  no  computation  of  time,  and  no 
measure  of  It.f     These  and  similar  phrases,  however,  as  used 

*  Hist.  Christ.  Relig.  and  Church,  vol.  ii.  pp.  361-365 ;  Hist.  Christ.  Dogm., 
pp.  286,  287. 

t  So  Philo :  "  Before  the  world,  time  had  no  existence,  but  was  created 
either  simultaneously  with  it,  or  after  it."  Time  being  connected  with  the 
motion  of  the  heavens,  it  "  follows  of  necessity  that  it  was  created  either  at 
the  same  moment  with  the  world,  or  later  than  it."  Again  :  "  It  would  be  a 
sign  of  great  shnplicity  to  think  that  the  world  was  created  in  six  days,  or 
indeed  at  all  in  time.  .  .  .  One  must  confess  that  time  is  a  thing  posterior  to  the 
world.  Therefore  it  would  be  correctly  said  that  the  world  was  not  created 
in  time,  but  that  time  had  its  existence  in  consequence  of  the  world."    De 


256  AEIUS,    AND   THE   ARIAN   CONTEOVERSY. 

by  the  Fathei's,  did  not  mean  "  from  eternity."  God  alone, 
fts  it  was  believed  and  taught,  was  eternal,  without  beginning. 
The  Son  had  a  beginning  before  time  and  the  ages,  but  not 
from  eternity.  Justin  Martyr,  who-  led  the  way  in  these 
refined  and  intricate  speculations  concerning  the  generation  of 
the  Son,  is  a  httle  more  definite,  and  says  that  the  Son  was 
begotten,  or  created,  when  God  was  about  to  form  and  garnish 
the  heavens  and  the  earth,  being  the  "  beginning  of  his  ways 
to  his  works." 

The  proceedings  of  the  council  are  involved  in  great  ob- 
scurity. We  have  no  methodical  account  of  them  by  any 
ancient  writer.  The  information  we  possess  is  gleaned  mostly 
from  incidental  notices,  and  uncertain  and  varying  tradition, 
which  often  leaves  us  in  doubt  what  to  admit  or  reject.  Euse- 
bius  breaks  off  his  history  abruptly  before  the  commencement 
of  the  synod.  In  his  "  Life  of  Constantine,"  he  gives  us  a 
few  particulars  ;  but,  for  the  most  part,  substitutes  rhetoric  for 
history.  His  letter  to  his  people,  written  at  Nice  during  the 
session  of  the  council,  is  indeed,  as  far  as  it  goes,  a  precious 
document.  Athanasius,  then  a  young  man,  a  deacon  in  the 
Alexandrian  church,  accompanied  his  bishop  to  the  synod, 
and  there  first  became  known  as  a  zealous  champion  of  ortho- 
doxy. His  works  contain  frequent  allusions  to  the  debates 
and  decrees  of  the  council,  but  nothing  from  which  we  can 
construct  a  continuous  narrative.*  Besides  these,  we  have 
the  "  Synodical  Epistle,"  and  two  letters  of  Constantine,  writ- 
ten at  the  time  of  the  dispersion  of  the  council.  These  are  all 
the  contemporary  documents  of  any  value  which  we  possess. 
Subsequent  writers  are  to  be  used,  of  course,  with  much 
caution  ;  and  even  some  of  the  original  documents  require  to 
be  carefully  sifted,  as  they  contain  the  reports  of  interested 

Mundi  Opif.,  c.  7  ;  Legnm  Allecj.,  lib.  i.  c.  2 ;  0pp.,  t.  i.  pp.  6,  44,  ed.  Mang. 
To  say  that  Christ  had  an  existence  before  time,  then  meant  only  that  he  ex- 
isted before  this  material  creation. 

*  Besides,  Athanasius  is  not  the  very  best  authority  in  this  case.  "  It  is 
important,"  says  Neander,  "  to  remark,  that,  in  the  case  of  Athanasius,  tliere 
are  many  things  which  would  render  it  difficult  for  iiim  to  take  an  unbiased 
view  of  the  proceedings."  He  says  that  Athanasius  "distorts  the  true  form 
of  the  facts."  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  he  thinks  a  far  better  authority  in  mat- 
ters relating  to  the  council  than  either  Atlianasius,  or  Eustathius  of  Antioch. 
Hist.  Christ.  Relig.  and  Church,  vol.  ii.  pp.  372-376. 


CONSTANTINE.  257 

witnesses ;  and  truth  may  be  found  in  them  distorted  by  pas- 
sion and  party  prejudice. 

The  Fathers  of  the  council  certainly  gave  evidence  of 
retaining  the  imperfections  of  our  common  nature.  Their 
attention  was  not  so  absorbed  with  the  great  questions  they 
were  called  to  discuss,  but  they  had  time  to  think  of  their 
petty  differences  and  private  causes  of  dissatisfaction  and  com- 
plaint. Constantino  undertook  the  office  of  pacificator ;  and 
it  required  all  his  authority  and  art  to  preserve  among  them 
the  appearance  of  even  tolerable  decorum.  It  would  seem 
that  there  had  been  a  good  deal  of  discussion  before  his  arrival. 
On  the  day  appointed,  he  entered  the  assembly,  clad  in  his 
imperial  robes,  and  glittering  with  gold  and  gems ;  and,  all 
being  seated,  the  bishop  who  sat  next  him  on  the  right  (as 
Eusebius  the  historian  tells  us,  referring,  according  to  Sozo- 
men,  to  himself*)  addressed  him  in  a  short  speech ;  to  wliich 
the  emperor  replied  in  a  few  words,  in  Latin,  recommending 
peace  and  harmony.  The  debates,  for  some  time,  appear  to 
have  been  conducted  with  no  little  acrimony ;  and  much  per- 
sonal abuse  was  heard.  The  emperor,  however,  was  patient : 
he  listened,  argued,  and  entreated  (now  speaking  in  Greek), 
and  did  all  in  his  power  to  promote  concord  and  amity.  One 
circumstance  is  mentioned  very  much  to  his  credit.  The 
Fathers  tormented  him  with  written  accusations  against  each 
other,  which  they  were  constantly  placing  in  his  hands.  To 
put  a  stop  to  the  proceeding,  he  assigned  a  day  on  which  he 
would  receive  all  papers  of  this  sort ;  and,  collecting  them 
together,  he  burnt  them,  with  all  those  he  had  previously 
received,  without  reading  a  word  of  them ;  telling  his  bishops 
that  they  must  wait  the  decision  of  the  day  of  final  account 
and  the  sentence  of  the  great  Judge  of  all.  As  for  himself, 
who  was  a  mere  mortal,  he  could  not,  he  said,  undertake  to 
settle  their  differences. 

Eusebius's  description  of  the  scene  presented  at  the  council 
is  in  his  most  florid  vein.  We  will  relieve  the  dryness  of  our 
narrative  by  a  few  quotations  from  it :  "  When  the  emperor's 
order  was  brought  into  all  the  provinces,"  he  says,  "all  persons 

*  Theodoret,  with  the  appearance  of  great  improbability,  confers  the  honor 
on  Eustathius  of  Antioch. 

17 


258  ARIUS,    AND    THE   ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

Bet  out,  as  it  were,  from  some  goal,  and  ran  with  all  imaginable 
alacrity :  for  the  hope  of  good  things  drew  them,  and  the  par- 
ticipation of  peace,  and  the  spectacle  of  a  new  miracle ;  to 
wit,  the  sight  of  so  great  an  emperor.  When,  therefore,  they 
were  all  come  together,  that  which  was  done  appeared  to  be 
the  work  of  God :  for  they  who  were  at  the  greatest  distance 
one  from  another,  not  only  in  minds,  but  in  bodies,  regions, 
places,  and  provinces,  were  seen  assembled  together  in  one 
place  ;  and  one  city  received  them  all,  as  it  were  some  vast 
garland  of  priests  made  up  of  a  variety  of  beautiful  flowers." 
He  then  enumerates  the  places  from  which  they  came  ;  being 
ministers  of  the  churches  "  which  filled  all  Europe,  Africa,  and 
Asia." 

Some  of  them,  he  says,  were  eminent  for  "  wisdom  and  elo- 
quence ;  some  for  integrity  of  life,  and  patient  endurance  of 
hardships  ";  some  were  "  adorned  with  modesty  and  a  cour- 
teous behavior  ";  some  were  "  respected  for  their  great  age," 
and  others  rejoiced  in  "  youthful  vigor."  The  emperor  pro- 
vided food  for  them  all.  When  the  day  for  the  opening  of  the 
council  arrived,  they  assembled  in  the  "  middlemost  edifice  of 
the  palace,"  where  seats  were  placed  "on  both  sides  of  the 
room."  Each  of  them  "  took  an  agreeable  seat."  Then  all 
is  silence,  in  expectancy  of  the  emperor.  His  heralds  precede 
him.  At  a  signal  given,  they  all  rise,  and  the  emperor  him- 
self comes  walkincr  in  "  like  some  celestial  angel  of  God, 
shining  with  his  bright  purple  garment,  as  it  were  with  the 
splendor  of  light,  glistening  with  flaming  rays,  and  adorned 
with  the  clear  brightness  of  gold  and  precious  stones.  Such 
was  the  attire  of  his  body."  But  his  mind  excelled  all.  He 
Avas  "  adorned  Avith  a  fear  and  reverence  of  God."  He  cast 
down  his  eyes  "  with  a  blushing  countenance  ";  and,  by  his 
gait  and  motion,  manifested  his  modesty  and  humility.  In 
"  tallness  of  stature  "  he  surpassed  all  who  were  about  him,  as 
also  in  a  "  magnificent  gracefulness  of  body,  and  in  an  invin- 
cible strength  and  might."  He  moved  majestically  on  to  the 
upper  end  of  the  hall,  and  remained  standing ;  till,  a  "  low 
chair  made  of  gold  "  being  placed  before  him,  the  "  bishops 
beckoned "  him  to  be  seated.  Eusebius  gives  his  opening 
speech,  very  flattering  and  comjilimentary  to  the  bishops.* 

*   Vita  Const.,  lib.  iii.  cc.  6-12. 


DIFFICULTY    OF    FORMING    A    CREED.  259 

No  little  difficulty  was  experienced  in  framing  a  symbol 
which  would  prove  generally  acceptable,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
have  the  effect  of  excluding  the  Arians.  Their  distinguishing 
dogma,  as  we  have  seen,  was  that  the  Son  was  produced  out 
of  nothing,  and  that  there  was  a  time  when  he  did  not  exist. 
This  was  to  be  condemned,  and  the  opposite  doctrine  affirmed. 
But  the  difficulty  consisted  in  the  selection  of  terms  which 
the  Orthodox  could,  and  which  the  Arians,  without  a  change 
of  sentiments,  could  not,  employ.  It  was  at  first  proposed,  as 
it  would  seem,  to  make  use  only  of  scriptui'al  expressions,  such 
as,  "  Christ  is  the  Wisdom  and  the  Power  of  God,"  the 
"  brightness  of  his  glory  ";  or  others  of  a  similar  character. 
The  Arians  professed  their  readiness  to  adopt  the  same  ;  but 
it  was  soon  discovered  that  they  could  evade  their  force  by 
putting  on  them  a  construction  consistent  with  their  own 
views,  and  thus  their  heresy  might  still  lurk  in  the  Church ; 
the  serpent  would  not  be  crushed.  Eusebius  of  Ctesarea 
offered  a  creed,  which,  he  says  in  his  letter  to  his  people,  at 
first  obtained  the  approbation  of  all,  emperor  and  clergy ;  but 
it  was  found,  upon  examination,  to  contain  no  term  which  the 
Arians  must  of  necessity  reject,  and  would  therefore  be  no 
sufficient  test  of  orthodoxy.  But,  luckily  for  them,  it  was  dis- 
covered from  a  letter  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  (which  was 
heard  with  shuddering,  and  torn  in  pieces  as  soon  as  read), 
that  he  and  the  Arians  had  great  dread  of  the  term  "  consub- 
stantial."  Here,  then,  was  pi-ecisely  the  term  which  was 
wanted.  The  word  was  immediately  introduced  into  the 
creed  just  mentioned ;  and  some  other  modifications  or  addi- 
tions were  made,  and  the  symbol  in  its  altered  form  was 
adopted.  The  Arians  loudly  remonstrated.  They  urged  that 
the  language  in  question  was  new  ;  that  it  had  not  the  sanction 
of  the  sacred  writings  or  of  antiquity :  but  their  complaints 
were  disregarded. 

Such,  in  brief,  is  the  history  of  the  famous  Nicene  Creed.* 
It  was  first  subscribed  by  Hosius ;  then  by  the  two  envoys  of 
the  Roman  bishop ;  the  bishops  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and 

*  For  a  history  of  the  council,  along  with  the  original  documents  already 
named,  see  Soc,  lib.  i.  c.  8 ;  Theodoret,  lib.  i.  c.  12 ;  Sozomen,  lib.  i.  cc.  17, 
19-21 ;  Euseb.  Vita  Const.,  lib.  iii.  cc.  6-12. 


260  ARIUS,    AND    THE   ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

Jerusalem ;  and  finally  by  most  of  the  others.  Eusebius  of 
Csesarea  at  first  hesitated  on  account  of  the  new  and  unscript- 
ural  term  "  consubstantial "  and  some  other  expressions  which 
had  been  introduced,  and  which  he  disliked.  His  sci'uples, 
however,  were  at  length  overcome ;  and  he  signed,  not  how- 
ever, it  seems,  without  great  reluctance.  He  appears  to  have 
been  aware  that  he  exposed  himself  to  the  charge  of  fickleness 
or  duplicity,  and  that  some  explanation  or  apology  was  neces- 
sary. He  accordingly  wrote  to  his  parishioners  in  Csesarea  to 
put  them  in  possession  of  the  truth,  and  show,  that,  though 
"he  resisted  to  the  last  hour  for  good  reasons,"  he  made  no 
compromise  of  principle  in  finally  yielding.  He  required,  he 
says,  an  explanation  of  the  obnoxious  expressions.  It  was 
asserted,  he  tells  them,  that  by  the  phrase,  "  of  the  substance 
of  the  Father,"  was  meant,  that  "  the  Son  is  of  the  Father, 
but  not  as  being  part  of  the  Father";  that  is,  "  not  part  of  his 
substance  ";  which  opinion,  he  says,  he  thought  sound.  "  It 
was  concluded,"  he  says,  "  that  the  expression,  '  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Father,'  implies  only  that  the  Son  of  God  does 
not  resemble,  in  any  one  respect,  the  creatures  which  he  has 
made ;  but  that  to  the  Father,  who  begat  him,  he  is  in  all 
points  perfectly  similar."  The  phrase,  "  begotten,  not  made," 
he  says,  was  used  because  the  term  "  made  "  is  common  and 
applied  to  all  creatures ;  whereas  the  Son,  as  begotten  of  the 
Father,  is  "  of  a  more  excellent  substance  than  they."  *  With 
these  explanations  he  was  so  far  satisfied,  he  tells  his  people, 
that  he  gave  his  assent  to  the  creed,  as  he  says,  "  for  the  sake 
of  peace." 

With  regard  to  the  anathemas  annexed  to  the  creed,  Euse- 
bins  says  he  found  no  difficulty  in  subscribing  them,  as  they 
only  prohibited  the  use  of  expressions  not  found  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Yet  the  creed  contained  such  expressions  ;  which  were 
admitted,  as  we  have  seen,  in  opposition  to  the  strongest  re- 
monstrances of  the  friends  of  rational  freedom.     From  the  uso 

*  See  the  letter,  as  preserved  by  Theodoret,  lib.  i.  c.  12,  and  Soc,  lib.  i. 
c.  8.  Athanasius  gives  the  same  account  of  the  matter.  The  council,  he 
says,  declare  that  the  Son  was  "of  the  substance  of  the  Father  (consubstan- 
tial), to  negative  the  Arian  notion,  that  he  was  of  things  created,  or  was  cre- 
ated out  of  nothing,"  was  "a  work,  and  alterable."  —  De  Syn.  Nic.  Decret., 
cc.  19,  20. 


SENTENCE    OF    THE    COUNCIL.  261 

of  sucli  terms,  Eusebius  remarks  in  the  same  letter,  "  had 
come  ahnost  all  the  confusion  and  disturbance  which  had  been 
raised  in  the  church." 

Five  bishops  still  resisted,  and  refused  to  subscribe.  These 
were  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  Theognis  of  Nice,  Maris  of 
Chalcedon,  Theonas,  and  Secundus.*  Eusebius  and  Theognis 
afterwards  consented  to  subscribe  the  creed,  but  resolutely 
refused  to  subscribe  the  anathemas  against  Arius,  because,  as 
they  said,  they  attributed  to  him  opinions  which  he  did  not 
hold.f  Maris,  it  seems,  did  the  same.  They  were  reproached, 
however,  for  their  insincerity  and  bad  faith ;  and  were  said, 
at  the  suggestion  of  Constantia,  the  emperor's  sister,  to  have 
used  a  very  disingenuous  artifice.  J 

Theonas  and  Secundus,  pei'severing  in  their  opposition, 
were  banished. §  Secundus,  as  Philostorgius  tells  us,  when 
about  to  go,  said  to  Eusebius,  "  You  have  subscribed,  Euse- 
bius, to  save  yourself  from  exile ;  but  I  am  confident  —  for 
God  has  revealed  it  to  me  —  that  you  will  be  banished  within 
a  year."  The  prediction  was  verified ;  for,  within  three 
months,  Eusebius,  having  returned,  as  it  is  expressed,  to  his 
"  former  impiety,"  was  exiled,  as  was  also  Theognis  of  Nice. 
They  had  continued,  it  appears,  to  teach  the  Arian  doctrine, 
and  had  afforded  an  asylum  to  certain  Arians,  who,  on  account 
of  their  opinions,  had  been  driven  from  Alexandria,  and  were 
therefore  removed,  and  successors,  by  the  command  of  the 
emperor,  elected  to  fill  their  sees.|| 

Arius  and  his  adherents,  his  opinions,  and  his  books,  par- 
ticularly his  "  Thalia,"  were  anathematized  and  condemned,^ 
and  he  was  forbidden  to  enter  Alexandria.  The  emperor 
confirmed  the  sentence  of  the  council ;  and  decreed,  more- 
over, that  the  heresiarch  and  his  followers  should  be  branded 
with  the  name  of  Porphyrians.  The  more  effectually  to 
repress  his  "  wicked  doctrine,"  and  cause  every  memorial  of 
him  to  perish,  he  ordered  that  all  his  books  should  be  burnt ; 
and  that  any  person  who  should  be  convicted  of  concealing 

*  Soc,  lib.  i.  c.  8.  t  Ibid.,  c.  14.  t  Philostorg.,  lib.  i.  c.  9. 

§  Epist.  Synod.,  and  Philostorg.,  lib.  i.  c.  9. 

'J  Theod.,  lib.  i.  c.  19  ;   Const.  Epist.  ad  Nicom.,  ibid.,  c.  20. 

TT  Epist.  Synod,  ap.  Soc,  lib.  i.  c.  9. 


262  ARIUS,    AND    THE    ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

any  one  of  them,  and  of  refusing  immediately  to  produce  and 
burn  it,  should  be  punished  with  death.* 

The  council,  having  finished  its  business,  was  dissolved  late 
in  August,  after  a  session  of  a  little  more  than  two  months.f 

Neander  takes  notice  of  the  fact,  that  many  of  the  bishops 
composing  the  council  signed  the  creed  under  compulsion,  or 
in  consequence  of  threats.  The  emperor,  according  to  Euse- 
bius,  undertook  himself  to  explain  the  term  "  consubstantial," 
and  dogmatized  on  the  subject.  The  creed  was  imposed  by 
authority.  "  Many  others,"  says  Neander,  "  adopted  the  Ni- 
cene  Creed  in  the  same  sense  with  Eusebius,  interpreting  it 

in  accordance  with  their  own  doctrinal  system But  as 

the  creed  was  to  be  made  known  under  the  imperial  authority, 
and  threatened  all  who  would  not  adopt  it  with  the  loss  of 
their  places,  and  condemnation  as  refractory  subjects,  the 
greater  part  of  them  yielded  through  fear."  There  was  only 
a  "forced  and  artificial  union."  J  We  shall  say  more  of  this 
creed  in  a  subsequent  chapter. 

It  has  been  pretended  by  the  enemies  of  Arius,  that,  when 
he  found  himself  anathematized,  his  courage  forsook  him,  and 
he  made  his  peace  with  the  council  by  a  sacrifice  of  principle. 
Such,  however,  is  not  the  fact.  The  historians,  Socrates  and 
Sozomen,  both  say  that  he  was  excommunicated,  and  that  he 
was  prohibited  from  entering  Alexandria.  That  he  went  into 
exile  is  certain  ;  for  Eusebius  and  Theognis,  in  a  petition  for 
liberty  to  return,  urge  the  fact  that  Arius  had  been  already 
recalled.  §  The  time  of  his  recall  is  uncertain.  It  has  been 
said  that  he  remained  in  exile  ten  years :  but  this  must  be  a 
mistake  ;  for  Eusebius  and  Theognis  were  permitted  to  return 

*  Emperor's  Letter  to  the  Bishops  and  People,  Soc,  lib.  i.  c.  9. 

t  Eusebius  {Vita  Const.)  describes  witb'an  amusing  naivete  tlie  magnificent 
feast  prepared  for  tbe  Fatbers  of  tbe  council,  on  tbeir  departure,  by  Constan- 
tine,  that  "  miracle  of  an  emperor."  Tbe  avenue  to  tbe  palace,  lie  tells  us, 
was  guarded  witb  long  files  of  soldiers,  "  witb  tbe  naked  points  of  tbeir 
swords ;  tbrougb  tbe  midst  of  wbom  tbe  men  of  God,  witbout  fear,  passed 
into  tbe  inmost  rooms  of  tbe  palace."  Tbere  some  of  tbem  were  permitted 
to  recline  witb  tbe  emperor,  and  otliers  were  placed  on  side-couches.  "  One 
would  bave  tbougbt,"  says  Euscbivis,  "that  Christ's  kingdom  was  adum 
brated,  and  that  the  tiling  itself  was  a  dream,  and  nothing  more." 

X  Hist.  Christ.  Rdig.  and  Church,  vol.  ii.  pp.  377,  378. 

§  Soc,  lib.  i.  c.  14.     Illyricum  is  mentioned  as  the  place  of  Arius's  exile. 


ATHANASIUS.  263 

within  three  years  after  their  banishment ;  *  and  Arius,  as  we 
have  just  said,  had  been  previously  recalled. 

Meantime,  Alexander  had  died,  having  survived  the  disso- 
lution of  the  council  only  about  five  months  ;  and  the  youthful 
Athanasius,  as  the  reward  of  his  zeal,  was  elevated  to  the 
primacy.  So  the  Orthodox  tell  us.  The  enemies  of  Athana- 
sius, however,  say  that  he  obtained  the  see  by  deception  and 
trick ;  having  in  the  last  resort,  the  votes  of  the  bishops  being 
divided,  shut  himself  up  in  a  church  in  the  evening  with  sev- 
eral of  his  adherents,  and  two  bishops  whom  he  forced  by 
threats  to  perform  the  ceremony  of  consecration  ;  they,  the 
whole  time,  remonstrating  against  the  violence.  The  story, 
which  is  told  at  large  by  Philostorgius,f  may  be  false  or  exag- 
gerated ;  though  it  will  not  do,  in  reading  the  history  of  those 
times,  to  believe  the  Orthodox  in  everything,  and  the  heretics 
in  nothing.  The  latter,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  had  sometimes 
truth  on  tlieir  side.  However  it  might  have  been  in  the  pres- 
ent case,  Athanasius  was  soon,  to  appearance,  securely  seated 
on  the  episcopal  throne  of  Alexandria.  But  he  was  not  suf- 
fered long-  to  remain  unmolested.  The  Eusebians  had  assem- 
bled  a  council,  and  deposed  Eustathius,  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
who  had  charged  Eusebius  of  C^esarea  with  Arianism,  and 
had  been  himself,  in  turn,  accused  of  Sabellianism  and  immo- 
rality. Their  attention  was  now  turned  to  Arius.  They  were 
determined  that  Athanasius  should  readmit  him  into  Alexan- 
dria, and  restore  him  to  the  communion  of  the  church.  Euse- 
bius was  resolute  and  persevering.  He  wrote  to  Athanasitis ; 
and,  as  Socrates  says,  he  employed  entreaties  and  threats,  but 
to  no  purpose.  He  then  turned  to  the  emperor,  and  endeav- 
ored to  prevail  on  him  to  interest  himself  in  the  cause  of  the 
unfortunate  presbyter.  In  this  he  was  successful.  Arius  was 
admitted  to  the  presence  of  Constantine,  and  found  means  of 
satisfying  him  that  he  was  sound  in  the  faith. 

This  was  brought  about  in  the  following  manner.  Con- 
stantia,  the  emperor's  sister,  had  in  her  train  an  Arian  presby- 
ter, whom  she  treated  as  a  friend  and  confidant.  The  pres- 
byter, in  some  familiar  conversations  he  held  with  her,  took 
occasion  to  speak  of  Arius,  and  told  her  that  he  was  an  injured 
*  Philostorg.,  lib.  ii.  c.  7.  t  Lit.  ii.  c.  11. 


264  ARIUS,    AND    THE   ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

man,  and  that  his  sentiments  had  been  misrepresented.  Con- 
Btantia  gave  credit  to  his  assertions,  but  had  not  the  courage 
to  mention  the  subject  to  her  brother.  Falling  sick,  however, 
she,  on  her  death-bed  (a.  d.  327),  recommended  the  priest  to 
him  as  a  man  of  piety  and  diligence,  and  well  affected  towards 
his  government.  The  emperor  admitted  him  to  his  confi- 
dence ;  and  after  some  time,  when  the  priest  had  become 
emboldened  by  familiarity,  received  of  him  accounts  similar  to 
those  which  had  been  given  to  his  sister.  The  priest  assured 
him,  that,  if  he  would  admit  Arius  to  his  presence,  the  latter 
would  convince  him  that  he  was  Orthodox  according  to  the 
sense  of  the  synod  of  Nice.  The  emperor  heard  this  with 
surprise ;  but  said,  that,  if  Arius  really  held  the  Nicene  faith, 
he  would  not  only  admit  him  to  his  presence,  but  would  send 
him  back  with  honor  to  Alexandria. 

Arius  was  immediately  summoned  to  court,  but  at  first 
declined  going.  The  emperor  then  writes,  telling  him  to  take 
a  public  vehicle,  and  hasten  to  him  with  all  speed.  He  comes, 
accompanied  with  Euzoius,  a  fellow-sufferer  on  account  of  his 
opinions.  At  the  command  of  the  emperor,  they  present  a 
summary  of  their  faith.  This  is  expressed  in  very  general 
terms.  They  profess  their  belief  in  "  one  God,  the  Father 
Almighty;  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  begotten 
before  all  worlds  ";  and,  after  enumei'ating  some  other  articles, 
they  add  that  they  hold  "  the  faith  of  the  Church  and  the 
Scriptures "  concerning  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit. 
We  discover  in  the  confession  no  evidence  that  Arius's  senti- 
ments had  undergone  any  change,  or  that  he  was  guilty  of 
any  disingenuous  concealment.  The  creed  was  sufficiently 
Arian  ;  though  it  does  not  contain  the  obnoxious  expi-essions, 
"  made  out  of  nothing,"  and  "  there  was  a  time  when  he  did 
not  exist."  These,  as  not  being  scriptural  expressions,  the 
Arians  seemed  now  willing,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  to  avoid. 
They  consented,  besides,  to  call  Christ  the  Logos,  Wisdom, 
Power,  of  God ;  maintaining,  however,  that  the  terms  were 
applied  to  him  only  in  a  figurative  sense.  So,  no  doubt,  they 
were  intended  to  be  used  in  their  "  confession ";  and,  "  if 
Constantine  was  satisfied  with  it,"  we  may  say  with  Le  Clerc, 
"  either  he   must  have  changed  his  views,  or  he  gave  little 


ATHANASIUS    DEPOSED.  265 

attention  to  it,  or  he  but  imperfectly  comprehended  the  sense 
of  the  Nicene  Council."  He  appeared,  certainly,  from  this 
time,  very  much  softened  towards  the  Arians  ;  and  may  be 
said,  in  fact,  to  have  become  their  patron. 

Under  sanction  of  the  emperor,  Arius  now  returns  to  Alex- 
andria, seeks  admission  into  the  church,  and  is  refused  ;  Euse- 
bius  writes  to  Athanasius  on  the  subject ;  the  emperor,  too, 
writes :  but  the  primate  is  still  refractory,  and  replies,  that  to 
reinstate  one  who  had  been  anathematized  as  a  heretic  was 
impossible.  The  emperor,  in  a  rage,  writes  back,  telling  him, 
that,  if  he  did  not  do  as  he  was  desired,  he  should  be  instantly 
deposed  and  banished.  The  haughty  Alexandrian  now  saw 
the  storm  fast  gathering  over  his  head.  The  Eusebians  had 
the  ear  of  the  emperor,  and  various  charges  were  brought 
against  him.  He  was  accused  of  several  violent  and  oppres- 
sive acts,  —  of  sedition,  sacrilege,  and  atrocious  murder. 

Of  some  of  these  charges  the  emperor  acquitted  him,  and 
ordered  that  a  council,  to  be  assembled  at  Tyre,  should  take 
cognizance  of  the  rest,  that  previously  held  at  Csesarea  having 
proved  unavailing.  The  council,  consisting  of  sixty  bishops 
from  various  parts,  met  a.  d.  335.  Athanasius  refused  to 
appear,  until  the  emperor  threatened,  that,  if  he  did  not  come 
voluntarily,  he  should  be  brought  by  force.*  He  then  makes 
his  appearance  with  a  train  of  Egyptian  bishops,  forty-seven 
in  number,  who  had  not  been  called,  but  who  might  be  capa- 
ble in  various  ways  of  rendering  him  service.  Before  the 
council  has  come  to  a  decision  on  the  questions  submitted  to 
it,  however,  he  secretly  withdraws  from  Tyre  ;  and  his  flight 
is  construed  into  an  acknowledgment  of  his  guilt.  He  was 
condemned  and  deposed  upon  several  charges,  among  which 
Philostorgius  mentions  illegitimate  ordination,  and  a  most  foul 
slander  which  he  was  proved  to  have  forged  against  Eusebius 
of  Nicomedia.f  What  the  truth  really  was,  and  how  much 
falsehood  was  blended  with  it,  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain  from 
the  obscure  and  confused  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
council  given  by  the  historians. 

*  Soc,  i.  28. 

t  Philostorg.,  ii.  11 ;  Soc,  i.  32 ;  Soz.,  ii.  25 ;  and  Euseb.  Vita  Const.,  iv. 
il,42 


266  ARIUS,    AND    THE    ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

Athanasius  very  probably  received  hard  measure  from  the 
hands  of  his  judges,  who  were  unfriendly  to  him :  but  Arius 
had  received  the  same  from  the  hands  of  the  orthodox,  who 
were  his  enemies ;  and  they  could  not  now  in  justice  complain. 

The  council,  having  completed  their  business  at  Tyre, 
repaired  to  Jerusalem  to  consecrate  the  Church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre,  for  which  they  had  been  originally  summoned. 
After  the  performance  of  this  act,  they  proceed  to  readmit 
Arius  and  his  friends  to  communion,  the  emperor  testifying  to 
their  orthodoxy.*  They  write  a  letter  still  extant,  addressed 
to  the  church  of  Alexandria  and  to  "  all  throughout  Egypt, 
Thebais,  Libya,  and  Pentapolis,  and  to  the  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons  throughout  the  world,"  requiring  them  to  receive 
Arius  and  his  followers  back  into  the  bosom  of  the  Church, 
and  expressing  the  desire  that  this  might  be  done  with  all 
readiness,,  and  full  peace  and  harmony  be  restored. f 

Athanasius  had  suddenly  disappeared  from  Tyre.  We  next 
hear  of  him  at  Constantmople.  As  the  emperor  was  entering 
the  city  on  horseback,  Athanasius,  accompanied  by  his  band 
of  ecclesiastics,  suddenly  threw  himself  in  his  way.  The 
emperor,  not  recognizing  him,  felt  a  momentary  alarm.  On 
being  told  that  it  was  Athanasius,  he  ordered  him  to  be  re- 
moved. But  the  bishop  kept  his  ground,  "  nothing  daunted," 
till  he  made  himself  heard.  All  he  asked,  he  said,  was  that 
the  council  which  had  deposed  him  should  be  summoned  to 
Constantinople,  that,  in  the  presence  of  the  emperor,  he  might 
prefer  his  complaints,  and  have  a  fair  hearing..  The  request 
was  granted,  and  a  letter  despatched  to  Jerusalem  requiring 
as  maaiy  of  the  council,  which  was  not  yet  dissolved,  as  had 
composed  the  Synod  of  Tyre,  to  appear  at  Constantinople.:): 
The  summons  came  like  a  thunderbolt,  and  the  bishops  were 
in  no  little  perplexity.  Most  of  them,  so  the  orthodox  histo- 
rians tell  us,  concluded  that  it  would  be  their  safest  course  to 
get  home  as  quick  as  possible,  and  immediately  set  off.  But 
some  —  among  whom  were  Eusebius,  Theognis,  and  others  — 
went  and  reported  themselves   at  Constantinople.      Another 

*  Soc,  i.  33. 

t  See  letter  in  Athanasius,  De  Syn.  Arim.  et  Sel.,  c.  21. 

\  Emperor's  Letter  to  the  Synod,  Soc,  i.  34. 


ARIQS    AT    CONSTANTINOPLE.  2B7 

charo-e  was  now  broun;ht  ao-ainst  Athanasius.  He  had  threat- 
ened,  it  was  said,  to  stop  the  supply  of  corn  which  was  annually 
sent  from  Egypt  to  the  imperial  city.  Constantine  was  satisfied 
of  his  guilt,  and  the  friends  of  Athanasius  trembled  for  his  life  ; 
but  the  emperor  listened  to  the  suggestions  of  mercy,  and  was 
content  to  bauish  him  to  Treves  in  Gaul.  There  was  a  tradi- 
tion current  in  the  time  of  Socrates  the  historian,  that,  in  send- 
ing him  into  exile  in  a  remote  province,  Constanthie  was 
influenced  not  merely  by  the  crimes  imputed  to  him,  but  by 
an  earnest  desire  to  restore  peace  to  Christendom,  which  he 
despaired  of  doing  while  the  proud  and  inflexible  prelate  was 
allowed  to  mingle  in  its  councils. 

The  friends  of  Athanasius  at  Alexandria  witnessed  the  return 
of  Arius  with  grief,  and  many  disorders  followed.  He  soon 
after  appeared  at  Constantinople  ;  having  either  gone  there 
voluntarily,  or  been  summoned  to  answer  for  the  disturbances 
in  Egypt.  We  have  now  arrived  at  the  closing  scene  of  his 
life.  Alexander,  a  strenuous  advocate  of  the  Nicene  faith,  was 
at  this  time  Bishop  of  Constantinople ;  and  Eusebius  threatened, 
that,  if  he  did  not  admit  Arius  to  communion,  he  should  be 
deposed.  The  bishop  was  not  intimidated.  He  turned  to  God 
for  refuge.  Retiring  into  his  church,  he  prostrated  himself 
upon  the  ground  beneath  the  table  of  the  altar,  and  poured 
forth  his  prayers  and  tears.  This  he  continued  to  do,  it  is 
asserted,  for  days  and  nights  together. 

Meanwhile  Arius,  we  are  told,  had  appeared  before  the 
emperor,  and  satisfied  him  of  his  orthodoxy.  He  is  said  to 
have  subscribed  to  the  Nicene  symbol.  The  emperor,  sur- 
prised at  this,  required  him  to  confirm  his  signature  by  oath ; 
which  he  did,  using  deception  all  the  while  :  for  he  had  a 
paper,  containing  his  real  sentiments,  concealed  under  his  arm, 
and  declared,  under  oath,  that  he  beheved  as  he  had  written. 
This  charge,  however,  is  wholly  destitute  of  proof.  Neander 
gives  no  credit  to  it,  and  goes  into  an  argument  to  show  its 
improbability.*  Socrates,  from  whom  the  story  is  taken,! 
does  not  vouch  for  its  truth,  but  is  careful  to  say,  that  he  had 
K)  "heard";    and  repeats,  that  it  was  matter  of  "hearsay 

*  Hist.  Christ.  Relig.  and  Church,  vol.  ii.  p.  385,  note, 
t  Lib.  i.  c.  38. 


268  ARIUS,    AND   THE   ARIAN   CONTROYERSY. 

only."  Another  account  —  far  more  probable  —  is  that  Arius 
was  required  to  give  an  account  of  his  faith  in  writing,  and 
that  he  took  care  to  express  himself,  on  the  disputed  points,  in 
Scripture  language,  on  which  he  could  put  his  own  construc- 
tion. With  this  the  emperor,  who  clearly  was  not  a  very  pro- 
found critic  in  these  matters,  was  satisfied,  as  he  had  been  by 
a  former  confession  of  Arius.  Constantine  was  now  not  difficult 
to  please  on  this  point.  He  "  stood  in  the  closest  relations," 
as  Neander  observes,  "  with  those  bishops  who  were  decidedly 
opposed  to  the  Nicene  Creed  " ;  and  had  no  great  zeal  for  its 
articles,  being  content  if  it  was  not  publicly  attacked.  We  are 
not  bound  to  believe  every  rumor  to  the  disadvantage  of  Arius 
put  in  circulation  by  his  enemies.  If  Athanasius  was  guilty  of 
one  half  the  crimes  imputed  to  him,  he  deserved  to  be  sent  to 
end  his  days  in  solitude  or  among  Barbarians  ;  for  he  was  fit 
only  to  live  with  savages.  We  do  not  believe  that  he  was 
guilty  of  one  fourth  part  of  them  ;  and  yet  the  charges  against 
him  are,  with  few  exceptions,  as  well  or  better  su]']:orted  than 
most  of  those  against  the  Arians.  We  only  claim  for  Arius 
the  benefit  of  that  common  justice  and  charity  to  which  all  are 
entitled.  We  ask  only  that  some  little  allowance  be  made  for 
the  exaggerations  of  party  feeling  and  the  virulence  of  theo- 
logical prejudice. 

The  emperor,  convinced  of  his  good  faith,  directed  Alexander 
to  admit  him  to  communion.  A  council  was  also  talked  of. 
Alexander  was  agitated  and  in  great  distress.  Entering  the 
church,  and  prostrating  himself  at  the  foot  of  the  altar,  he 
prayed  to  God,  that,  if  the  opinion  of  Arius  were  true,  he 
might  not  live  to  see  the  day  "  appointed  for  its  discussion  "  ; 
but,  if  not,  that  Arius  himself  might  be  cut  off".  The  next 
day  was  the  time  fixed  for  bringing  Arius  to  communion.  But 
as  he  was  proceeding  from  the  palace  through  the  city,  accom- 
panied by  his  friends,  in  a  sort  of  triumph,  he  was  attacked 
with  sudden  illness  ;  and,  retiring  to  the  nearest  office,  miserably 
perished,  A.  D.  336,  as  his  friends  say,  by  magical  arts  or  by 
poison,  but,  according  to  the  representations  of  his  enemies,  by 
a  judgment  of  Heaven,  in  answer  to  the  very  charitable  prayer 
of  Alexander,  who  would  rather  die  than  be  convinced  that  he 
was  in   error.     Such  are  the  principal  circumstances  of  the 


CHARACTER   OP   ARIUS.  269 

case,  as  given  hy  the  historians  and  Athanasius,  though  their 
narratives  vary  in  some  minute  particulars.* 

The  Eusebians,  as  the  Orthodox  tell  us,  were  filled  with 
consternation,  and  went  and  buried  the  companion  of  their 
heresy  in  silence.  The  spot  where  he  died  was  pronounced 
execrable  ;  and  those  who  passed  by  long  continued  to  point 
the  finger  at  it  in  pious  horror,  till  a  rich  Arian,  to  wipe  off 
the  stigma,  purchased  the  ground,  and  erected  upon  it  a  beau- 
tiful dwelling.  That  the  friends  of  the  unfortunate  Arius  were 
sensibly  affected  by  his  sudden  and  tragical  death,  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  His  enemies  indecently  exulted,  and  publicly 
returned  thanks  to  God,  who,  as  they  thought,  had  graciously 
interposed  to  rid  the  world  of  a  monster  of  impiety,  and,  by  a 
visible  token,  confirm  the  consubstantial  faith. f 

Of  the  intellectual  and  moral  character  of  Arius,  we  are 
compelled  to  think  favorably.  That  he  possessed  a  vigorous 
understanding,  acute  discernment,  and  great  clearness  of  com- 
prehension, admits  not  of  doubt.  He  wrote,  if  we  may  judge 
from  his  letters,  with  precision  and  accuracy  ;  and,  by  the  con- 
fession of  his  enemies,  united  consummate  skill  in  the  dialectic 
art  with  an  easy  address  and  popular  and  insinuating  eloquence. 
From  the  little  which  is  known  of  his  life,  it  may  be  inferred 
that  he  was  tolerant  and  charitable,  the  friend  of  inquiry  and 
rational  freedom.  He  had  the  independence  to  think  for  him- 
self, and  the  courage  to  express  his  opinions  ;  but  it  does  not 
appear  that  he  had  any  disposition  to  restrain  others  in  the 
exercise  of  their  liberty.  There  seems  to  have  been  no  bitter- 
ness in  his  nature.  We  do  not  hear  that  he  ever  indulged  in 
reproaches  against  his  oppressors.  He  attempted,  in  some 
respects,  to  reform  and  simplify  the  theology  of  the  age  ;  and 
was,  in  consequence,  denounced  as  a  blasphemer,  a  heretic,  a 

*  Soc,  lib.  i.  cc.  37,  38 ;  Sozomen,  lib.  ii.  cc.  29,  30 ;  Theodoret,  lib.  i.  c.  14. 
Valesius  contends  that  the  Arius  who  died  at  Constantinople,  a.  d.  336,  was 
not  the  arch-heretic,  but  one  of  his  followers  of  the  same  name.  This  it  is 
impossible  to  believe.  All  the  historians  and  Athanasius  speak  of  the  Arius 
who  thus  died,  without  giving  any  intimation  that  it  was  another  Arius.  It  is 
impossible  to  read  their  accounts,  as  it  seems  to  us,  without  a  conviction  that 
the  writers  all  along  have  in  view  the  author  of  the  heresy.  No  historical 
fact  appears  more  certain. 

t  Soc,  lib.  i.  c.  38  ;  Athan.  Epist.  ad  Scrap,  de  Morte  Arii,  et  ad  Episc.  ^g, 
et  Lib.,  c.  19. 


270  ARIUS,    AND    THE    ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

Porphyrian,  —  a  name  which  stood  for  all  that  was  vile  and 
hateful.  He  was  anathematized  and  cut  off  from  tlie  com- 
munion of  the  Christian  world,  and  it  was  made  felony  to  pos- 
sess any  of  his  books  ;  but  we  are  not  informed  that  he  was 
provoked  to  reply  with  acrimony,  or  gave  evidence  of  being 
deficient  in  the  meek  and  patient  virtues  of  the  Christian.  It 
is  certain  that  his  life  was  unspotted  ;  for  calumny  never  ut- 
tered a  Avhisper  against  its  purity. 

Of  his  writings,  with  the  exception  of  two  letters  and  the 
Confession  already  mentioned,  Ave  have  little  positive  infor- 
mation. Philostorgius,  as  represented  by  his  Orthodox  epito- 
mizer,  tells  us  that  he  wrote  songs  for  mariners  and  those  who 
were  engaged  at  the  mill  and  in  travelling,  that,  by  calling  to 
his  aid  the  charms  of  melody,  he  might  the  better  disseminate 
his  opinions  among  the  illiterate  portion  of  the  community. 
If  such  were  his  motive,  there  was  nothing  culpable  in  it. 
But  he  might  have  had  other  objects  in  view.  Persons  em- 
ployed in  grinding  at  the  mill,  in  ancient  times,  it  is  well 
known,  were  accustomed  to  cheer  their  labors  with  song ;  and 
those  devoted  to  other  occupations,  no  doubt,  did  the  same. 
The  motion  of  the  oar,  we  know,  in  modern  times,  is  often 
accompanied  by  chanting  or  music.  If  Arius  could  furnish 
popular  songs  preferable  to  those  in  general  use  in  his  time ; 
if  he  could  substitute  those  which  had  a  meaning,  and  were 
unexceptionable  in  point  of  expression  and  thought,  for  such 
as  were  loose,  profane,  or  contained  eri'oneous  sentiments,  — 
he  had  a  right  to  do  it.  More  than  this,  it  was  an  act  of  great 
benevolence  to  do  it. 

There  is  another  work  of  Arius,  which  is  often  mentioned 
by  Athanasius,*  the  "  Thalia,"  which  he  calls  a  poem,  —  a 
light  and  effeminate  poem,  "  after  the  manner  of  the  Egyptian 
Sotades."  He  seems  to  speak  of  it  as  a  sort  of  pleasant, 
jesting  performance,  —  a  piece  of  profane  buffoonery.  It  is 
difficult  to  say  what  Athanasius  means  by  all  this.  He  gives 
several  extracts  from  the  work,  in  which  there  is  certainly 
nothing  comic  or  humorous,  or  soft  and  effeminate.  The  in- 
troduction, if  Athanasius  has  quoted  it  correctly,  exhibits  a 

*  See  particularly  his  Orat.  i.  cont.  Arianos,  cc.  4,  6;  and  De  Syn.  Arim.  et 
SeL,  c.  15  ;  also  De  Syn.  Nic.  Decret.,  c.  16. 


WRITINGS    OF    ARIDS.  271 

kind  of  sonorousness  and  jingle,  a  pomp  and  affectation ;  and 
some  expressions  which  occur  in  it  savor  of  a  childish  vanity. 
But,  with  this  exception,  the  performance  appears,  for  aught 
we  can  discover,  to  have  been  plain  and  sober  enough.  The 
quotations  given  by  Athanasius,  which  are  very  short  frag- 
ments, contain  some  statements  of  Arius's  views  and  arccu* 
ments  in  their  favor,  but  perfectly  grave  and  decorous. 

If  Athanasius  means  only  that  Arius  in  his  songs,  —  which, 
however,  he  plainly  distinguishes  from  his  "  Thalia,"  —  made 
use  of  the  Sotadean  measure,  which  was  peculiar,  there  was 
nothing  criminal  in  that.  A  similar  charge  was  brought 
against  the  eai'ly  Protestant  reformers,  who  were  accused  of 
taking  their  "  airs  "  from  the  "  best  songs  of  the  times." 

But  then  the  songs  of  Arius,  it  is  objected,  were  doctrinal ; 
and  so  are  those  of  Dr.  Watts,  and  fifty  others  we  could 
name.  And,  if  we  mistake  not,  the  Athanasian  Creed  (which 
wall  be  admitted,  we  suppose,  to  be  somewhat  doctrinal)  is  to 
this  day  somewhere  appointed  to  be  "  said  or  su7ig "  in  the 
churches.* 

*  The  author  of  one  of  the  Oxford  "  Tracts  for  the  Times"  (No.  75),  says: 
"  It  is  a  far  truer  view  of  this  venerable  composition  to  consider  it  a  Psalm  or 
Hymn  of  praise,  or  of  concurrence  in  God's  appointments,  as  Fsahii  118  or 
139,  or  tlie  Te  Deum,  tlian  as  a  formal  Creed  "  ;  and  he  recommends  the  use 
of  it,  at  the  "dawn  of  the  first  day  of  the  week," for  so  "its  living  character 
and  spirit  are  incorporated  into  the  Christian's  devotions,  and  its  influence  on 
the  heart,  as  far  as  may  be,  secured."  —  Vol.  iii.  p.  190,  New  York  edit. 

As  to  the  songs  or  ballads  of  Arius,  and  his  "  Thalia,"  modern  writers 
have  felt  some  perplexity.  Some  speak  of  them  as  one  work,  though,  a§  we 
said,  clearly  distinguished  by  Athanasius.  Their  grossness  is  no  doubt  exag- 
gerated. J.  H.  Newman,  the  translator  of  Athanasius's  "  Treatises  against 
Arianism,"  in  the  Oxford  Library  of  the  Fathers,  finds  fault  with  the  Saint  for 
speaking  of  the  Egt/ptian  Sotades.  He  says  that  the  Sotades  referred  to  was 
a  Cretan  by  birth,  and  that  the  characteristic  of  his  metre  was  the  "  recur- 
rence of  the  same  cadence,  which  virtually  destroyed  the  division  into  verses, 
and  thus  gave  the  composition  that  lax  and  slovenly  air  to  which  Athanasius 
alludes."  The  Church,  he  says,  "adopted  the  Doric  music,  and  forbade  the 
Ionic  and  Lydian.  The  name  '  Thalia '  commonly  belonged  to  convivial 
songs."  Newman  thinks  that  the  offence  of  Arius  consisted  in  the  use  of  the 
music  and  light  metres  referred  to.  This,  no  doubt,  was  what  was  meant  when 
his  songs  and  his  "  Thalia  "  were  called  "  dissolute."  He  fell  into  the  error, 
as  Newman  explains  it,  "of  those  modern  religionists,  who,  with  a  better 
creed,  sing  spiritual  songs  at  table,  and  use  in  their  chapels  glees  and  opera 
airs." 

Athanasius  says  that  Arius  wrote  the  "  Thalia  "  after  his  expulsion  from 


272  AEIUS,    AND    THE    ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

the  Church  and  while  he  was  with  Eusebius.  We  subjoin  four  lines,  in  New- 
man's translation,  as  a  specimen.  According  to  Athanasius,  they  formed  part 
of  the  introduction  to  the  "  Thalia." 

"  According  to  faith  of  God's  elect,  God's  prudent  ones, 
Holy  children,  rightly  dividing,  God's  Holy  Spirit  receiving, 
Have  I  learned  this  from  the  partakers  of  wisdom, 
Accomplished,  divinely  taught,  and  wise  in  all  things." 

Lib.  of  the  Fathers,  viii.  185. 

Milman  {Hist,  of  Christianity,  p.  314,  ed.  N.  Y.)  softens  the  charges  brought 
against  Arius  on  account  of  the  character  of  his  "  Thalia  "  and  his  songs.  He 
refers  to  the  example  of  a  "  celebrated  modern  humorist  and  preacher,  who 
adapted  hymns  to  some  of  the  most  popular  airs,  and  declared  that  the  Devil 
ought  not  to  have  all  the  best  tunes." 


SUCCESS   AND   DECLINE   OF   ARIANISM.  273 


CHAPTER   III. 

Success  and  Decline  of  Arianism.  —  Long  survived  in  the  West.  — 
The  Goths  receive  it. — Influence  of  the  Ladies.  —  The  Friends 
AND  Coadjutors  of  Arius. — Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  Theognis  of 
Nice,  and  Eusebius  the  Historian.  —  Fortunes  of  Athanasius  : 
his  Wanderings  and  Death,  Writings  and  Character. 

If  the  sudden  removal  of  Arius  had  the  effect  of  damping 
for  a  moment  the  ardor  of  the  Eusebians,  their  courage  soon 
revived.  The  cause  of  Arianism  acquired  new  vigor  after 
the  death  of  Constantine,  a.  d.  337  ;  and  continued  to  be 
prosperous  during  the  whole  reign  of  his  son  Constantius,  who 
was  himself  an  Arian.  In  this  reign,  several  Arian  councils 
were  assembled ;  Arianism  was  everywhere  predominant ;  and 
the  consubstantial  or  Homoousian  faith  seemed  to  be  threat- 
ened with  destruction.  The  great  Hosius,  as  he  is  called,  now 
a  hundred  years  old,  subscribes  to  the  Arian  faith ;  Liberius, 
Bishop  of  Rome,  follows  his  example ;  and,  not  to  mention 
Felix,  called  by  the  Orthodox  the  inti'uder,  the  world,  for  once 
at  least,  beheld  an  Arian  pope.*  The  Arians  had  possession 
of  all  the  great  sees  of  the  Church.  "  The  whole  world,"  says 
Jerome,  "  groaned  and  was  surprised  to  find  itself  Arian."  f 

A  schism  took  place  among  the  Arians  :  one  party,  called 
Semi- Arians,  or  Homoiousians,  maintaining  that  the  Son  was, 
in  all  respects,  of  like  substance  with  the  Father ;  and  the 
other,  denominated  Aetians,  Eunomians,  and  Anomoeans,  who 
were  the  strict  Arians,  asserting  that  he  was  of  a  different  sub- 
stance, and  wholly  unlike  the  Father.  J 

At  their  councils,  the  Arians  adopted  various  confessions  of 
faith.  Socrates  enumerates  nine,§  and  speaks  of  them  as  a 
labyrinth  ;    and  Athanasius  mentions    their    "  ten    synods  or 

*  Athan.,  Ad  Mon.,  c.  45;  Soc,  ii.  31 ;  Du  Pin,  Hist,  of  Eccles.  Writers,  ii. 
50,  62 ;  Neander,  Hist.  Christ.  Relig.  and  Church,  ii.  404,  405. 
t  Dial.  adv.  Luctf. 
X  Epiphan.,  Hoer.  Ixxiii.-lxxvi.  §  Lib.  ii.  c.  41. 

18 


274  ARIUS,    AND    THE    ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

more,"  and  gives  several  of  their  creeds.  Tillemont  makes 
the  latter  amount  to  eighteen  during  the  reign  of  Constantius. 
Their  enemies  reproached  them  for  their  frequent  changes, 
which  were  attributed  to  their  fickleness  ;  *  but  their  friends, 
perhaps,  might  adduce  the  circumstance  as  evidence  only  that 
they  exercised  the  right  of  inquiry  and  the  free  expression  of 
sentiment.  We  could  wish,  however,  that  the  Arians  at  this 
period  had  not  disgraced  their  cause  by  persecutions. 

Constantius  died  A.  D.  361.  The  infidel  Julian  succeeded, 
and  neither  party  was  fostered  or  oppressed.  Jovian  favored 
the  consubstantialists.  Under  Valens,  Arianism  again  recov- 
ered strength,  but  sunk  beneath  the  severe  edicts  of  Theodo- 
sius,  and  was  afterwards  little  more  heard  of  in  the  Eastern 
Empire. 

It  long  survived,  however,  in  the  West.  The  Goths  re- 
ceived the  Arian  faith  from  the  celebrated  Ulfila,  or  Ulphilas, 
their  first  bishop,  and  the  inventor  of  their  alphabet. f  It  was 
embraced  by  the  Ostrogoths,  the  Siievi,  the  Burgundians,  the 
Vandals,  and  generally  by  the  Barbaric  nations  which  over- 
whelmed the  Western  Empire.  Orthodox  writers  assign  the 
year  660  as  the  date  of  its  extinction.  That  it  continued  to 
subsist  as  the  belief  of  many  private  Christians,  there  can  be 
no  doubt ;  but  its  energies  were  crushed  by  the  hard  pressure 
of  power,  and  it  rose  again  into  notice  only  after  the  slum- 
ber of  centuries.  With  its  revival  in  modern  times  we  have 
nothing  to  do.  J 

*  Athan.,  De  Si/n.  Arim.  et  Sel. ;  also  Epist.  ad  Episc.  in  Afr. 

t  Soc,  lib.  iv.  c.  33 ;  Philostorg.,  lib.  ii.  c.  5. 

%  Historians  have  noticed  the  influence  oiihe  Wf'es  on  the  fortunes  of  Arian- 
ism. "  The  Devil,"  says  Maimbourg,  "  made  use  of  three  women  to  intro- 
duce the  Arian  heresy  in  the  East,"  referring  to  the  Empresses  Constantia, 
Eusebia,  and  Dominica;  "but  God,  to  combat  him  with  his  own  weapons, 
employed  three  illustrious  queens,  Clotilda,  Ingonda,  and  Thcodclinda,  to  pu- 
rify the  West"  by  its  extermination  !  {Histoire  de  I'Arlain'sme,  lib.  xii.)  Maim- 
bourg is  an  eloquent  and  agreeable  writer,  but  exceedingly  deficient  in  candor, 
and  occasionally  draws  pretty  freely  upon  imagination.  Dr.  Jortin  classes 
him  with  those  who  "  make  history."  Tillemont  has  also  written  a  history  of 
the  Arians ;  and  no  two  works  could  present  a  more  striking  contrast,  in  point 
)f  manner  and  style,  than  Maimbourg's  and  his.  Tillemont's  consists  of  a 
dry  collection  of  quotations,  interspersed  now  and  then  with  an  original  re- 
mark. But  Tillemont's  ivork,  too,  takes  a  strong  coloring  from  his  prejudices, 
the  exliibition  of  which  is  often  not  a  little  amusing.     He  is  at  no  loss  to  ac- 


THE  FRIENDS  OF  ARIUS.  275 

The  friends  and  associates  of  Arius  now  claim  a  parting 
notice.  Of  these,  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  called  by  some  the 
great  Eusebius,  was  the  most  prominent.  From  the  time  he 
embarked  in  the  controversy  till  his  death,  the  party  continued 
to  be  animated  oy  his  counsels.  His  influence  may  be  attrib- 
uted in  part,  no  doubt,  to  his  focility  of  access  to  the  emperor, 
but  much  more  to  his  distinguished  ability,  his  shrewdness  and 
activity.  He  always  acted  with  vigor.  His  enemies  accused 
him  of  faction  and  intrigue  ;  but  we  must  not  form  our  judg- 
ment upon  party  statements.  He  had  been  banished  for  his 
resistance  to  the  imposition  of  an  unscriptural  creed.  His 
friends  had  been  oppressed,  calumniated,  and  some  of  them 
driven  into  exile,  for  presuming  to  exercise  freedom  of  thought, 
—  the  common  birthright  of  man.  If  the  warmth  of  his  feel- 
ings  and  his  keen  sense  of  injustice  sometimes  betrayed  him 
into  imprudence  and  excesses  (which  we  neither  deny  nor 
assert),  he  may  be  entitled  to  some  indulgence  on  the  score 

count  for  the  rise  of  Arianism  just  at  the  inoment  it  appeared  ;  for  tlie  Devil, 
despairing  of  propping  up  the  sinking  cause  of  Paganism  after  the  conversion 
of  Constantino,  and  having,  therefore,  notliing  to  do  out  of  the  Church,  went 
to  work  to  see  what  he  could  effect  in  it.  "  For  this  purpose,  he  made  use  of 
the  very  name  of  Jesus  Christ "  ;  and  Arius  was  the  unhappy  being  he  em- 
ployed to  maintain  the  "  impious  tenet,"  that  "  he  was  either  a  different  God 
from  his  Father,  or,  which  is  much  the  same  blasphemy,  that  he  was  not  truly 
God  at  all."     All  "  which  is  horrid  to  think  on  !  " 

The  Arians,  if  we  credit  several  of  tlie  old  ecclesiastical  writers,  and  Maim- 
bourg,  Tillemont,  and  others,  among  the  moderns,  were  only  instruments  in 
the  hands  of  the  great  adversary  of  God  and  man.  Yet  they  will  not  suffer, 
as  regards  character,  genius,  or  attainments,  by  comparison  with  the  consub- 
stantialists.  True,  they  are  represented  as  monsters ;  but  then  we  must  recol- 
lect that  their  enemies  are  their  painters.  We  have  feeling  complaints  of  the 
persecutions  kindled  by  the  Arians;  but  had  tlie  Arians  no  tale  of  cruelties  to 
tell  f  We  know  that  their  sufferings  were  great,  and  would,  no  doubt,  have 
appeared  much  greater,  had  their  own  accounts  been  spared  us.  But  tlie  in- 
juries of  time,  and  zeal  of  the  Orthodox,  have  suffered  few  of  their  writings 
to  survive  ;  and  tlieir  history  is,  therefore,  to  be  derived  chiefly  from  the  sus- 
picious testimony  of  their  foes.  Severe  edicts,  it  is  certain,  were  issued  for 
the  destruction  of  their  books  ;  and  the  story  of  their  sorrows,  as  related  by 
themselves,  has  perislied.  Tliat  in  their  prosperity  they  retorted  upon  the 
consubstantialists  the  wrongs  they  had  received,  only  proves  that  they  were 
not  superior  to  the  frailties  of  our  nature.  We  are  pointed  to  tlie  wanderings 
of  Athanasius  as  proof  of  tlieir  malice,  and  his  history  has  been  often  and 
pathetically  enough  told  ;  but  a  tear  for  the  unfortunate  Arius  has  been  more 
than  the  world  could  give. 


276  AEIUS,    AND    THE   ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

of  human  infirmity.  He  was  originally  Bishop  of  Berytus, 
afterwards  of  Nicomedia,  the  chief  city  of  Bithynia  ;  whence 
he  was  transferred,  about  the  year  338,  to  the  see  of  Constan- 
tinople. He  died  soon  after  the  council  of  Antioch,  —  prob- 
ably before  the  end  of  the  year  341.  He  was  reputed  to  be  a 
learned  man  ;  yet  we  are  not  informed  that  he  left  any  writ- 
ings except  letters,  of  which  one  only  is  preserved. 

Theognis  of  Nice,  as  we  have  said,  recovered  his  see  after 
his  exile  ;  but  of  his  subsequent  history  little  is  known,  except 
that  he  persevered  with  Eusebius  in  opposition  to  the  consub- 
stantial  faith.  Of  Theonas  and  Secundus  we  find  nothing 
worth  adding.  Maris  of  Chalcedon  survived  to  the  time  of 
the  Emperor  Julian ;  whom  he  had  the  coui'age  publicly  to 
reproach  for  his  idolatry,  as  he  was  sacrificing  on  the  altar  of 
Fortune.  He  was  then  old  and  blind.  He  had  formerly  seen 
the  philosophic  empei'or  practise  the  exercises  of  the  Christian 
religion,  and  now  thanked  God,  he  said,  in  reply  to  a  sarcasm 
of  Julian,  that  he  could  not  behold  his  impieties.  The  anec- 
dote, if  true,  shows  at  least  his  honesty  and  zeal. 

Of  Eusebius  the  historian,  another  of  the  friends  of  Arius, 
as  he  will  form  the  subject  of  a  separate  notice,  we  shall  here 
add  nothing  to  what  has  been  already  said. 

We  have  now  done  with  Arius  and  his  friends,  and  hasten 
to  offer  a  brief  tribute  to  the  great  champion  of  Orthodoxy. 
We  left  Athanasius  at  Treves,  where  he  had  been  banished 
for  a  real  or  supposed  crime  of  state,  a.  d.  336.  The  emperor 
was  importuned  by  his  friends  to  restore  him :  but  he  was  in- 
flexible, and  replied,  that  he  was  "  seditious,  and  had  been 
condemned  by  a  council."  He  was  compelled,  he  said,  to 
respect  the  decision  of  the  bishops  assembled  at  Tyre,  who 
could  not  be  supposed  to  have  been  under  the  influence  of 
passion.  Athanasius,  he  added,  was  "  insolent,  proud,  and 
kept  everything  in  a  constant  broil."  Constantino  died  soon 
after  (a.  d.  337),  having  in  his  last  illness  received  Arian  bap- 
tism from  the  hand  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia.* 

*  Constantine's  orthodoxy,  in  his  best  days,  sat  rather  loosely  upon  him, 
and  varied  with  time.  If  the  oration  to  the  "  Saints,"  that  is,  to  the  Fathers 
of  the  council,  ascribed  to  him  by  Eusebius  and  appended  by  him  to  his  Life 
of  the  emperor,  be  really  his,  he  certainly  was  no  Athanasian  in  the  later 


FORTUNES    OP    ATHANASIUS,  277 

Athanasius,  fortified  with  a  letter  from  the  young  Constan- 
tine,  now  returned  to  Egypt,  after  an  absence  of  nearly  two 
years.  His  entrance  into  Alexandria  was  marked  with  blood 
and  slaughter.  His  attempt  to  reascend  the  episcopal  throne, 
from  which  he  had  been  regularly  deposed  by  the  sentence  of 
a  synod,  was  vigorously  resisted  by  the  Arians ;  but  the  party 
of  Athanasius  prevailed.  Complaints  were  made  against  him 
to  the  Emperor  Constantius  ;  and  a  council,  at  which  the  em- 
peror was  present,  having  been  assembled  at  Antioch,  Atha- 
nasius was  declared  to  have  been  guilty  of  an  irregularity  in 
resuming  his  episcopal  functions  without  the  intervention  of  a 
synod ;  and  Gregory  of  Cappadocia  was  appointed  to  fill  the 
see  of  Alexandria.  On  his  arrival,  accompanied  with  a  band 
of  soldiers  to  enforce  the  decree  of  the  synod,  Athanasius 
effected  his  escape,  and  took  refuge  in  Italy.  According  to 
some  authorities,  he  soon  returned  to  Alexandria  with  letters 
from  Julius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  in  which  the  latter  severely 
censures  the  bishops  who  had  deposed  him  ;  and,  in  conse- 
quence, receives  from  them  a  sharp  reply,  rebuking  him  for 
his  impertinent  interference.  The  usual  disturbances  followed 
on  his  arrival  at  Alexandria ;  and  he  was  charged,  besides, 
with  selling  the  corn  which  the  late  emperor  had  provided  for 
the  relief  of  the  poor  widows  of  the  city,  and  with  appropri- 
ating the  proceeds  to  his  own  selfish  purposes.  The  emperor 
now  threatens  him  with  death,  and  he  thinks  it  prudent  again 
to  flee.  He  passes  some  time  in  concealment;  but  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  discovering  the  place  of  his  retirement,  interests 
himself  in  his  favor,  and  writes,  inviting  him  to  repair  to  his 
presence ;  and  Athanasius  finds  his  way  a  second  time  to 
Rome. 

Other  authorities,  with  more  probability  perhaps,  assign  to 
him  only  one  journey  to  Rome  ;  where  he  remained  some 
years,  during  which  a  synod  was  holden  at  Rome  in  his  favor. 
The  council  of  Sardica,  a.  d.  347,  after  the  secession  of  the 

sense  of  the  term.  Thus  he  pronounces  Plato  right  when  he  speaks  of  a 
"  first  God,  above  every  substance,"  to  which  first  God  he  adds  a  "  second, 
distinguishing  them  as  in  number  two  substances,"  or  two  essences,  the  sec- 
ond "proceeding  from  the  first,"  and  "ministering  to  his  commands,"  refer- 
ring the  constitution  of  all  things  to  him.  So  far,  he  says,  Plato  taught 
wisely  and  well.  —  Orat.  ad  Sanct.  Caet.,  o.  9. 


278  AEIUS,    AND   THE   ARIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

Eastern  bishops,  too  proves  friendly  to  him,  absolves  him  from 
the  sentence  of  the  synod  of  Antioch,  and  decrees  his  restora- 
tion and  that  of  some  other  bishops  to  their  sees.  The  Em- 
peror of  tlie  West  writes  to  his  brother  of  the  East,  acquaint- 
ing him  with  the  fact,  and  entreats  him  to  replace  them. 
Constantius  demurs ;  upon  which  the  Western  emperor  writes 
a  very  laconic  and  menacing  epistle,  telling  him,  that,  if  he 
refused,  he  would  himself  come,  and  restore  them  by  force. 
The  threat  is  eflFectual,  and  the  Eastern  emperor  consents  to 
their  restoration. 

On  his  way  to  Egypt,  Athanasius  passes  through  Jerusalem, 
and  is  received  to  communion  by  a  synod  of  his  friends  hastily 
assembled  on  the  occasion  ;  and  was  reestablished  in  his  see, 
A.  D.  349.  He  had  scarcely  taken  possession,  when  the  Em- 
peror Constans,  his  protector,  meets  a  violent  death  ;  and  he  is 
doomed  to  experience  afresh  the  effects  of  Constantius's  anger. 
New  charges  are  brought  against  him.  The  Western  bishops, 
after  a  long  delay,  are  induced  to  pronounce  sentence  of  con- 
demnation against  him ;  and  the  emperor  determines  on 
accomplishing  his  ruin.  He  escapes,  and  conceals  himself 
in  the  desert.  He  wrote  an  apology  for  his  flight,  which  is 
still  extant.  He  remained  in  seclusion  several  years ;  but 
after  the  death  of  George,  the  Arian  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
who  fell  by  the  hands  of  an  infuriated  mob,*  he  emerged  from 
his  solitude,  and  resumed  his  office,  a.  d.  362.  His  stay  was 
short ;  for  Julian,  who  was  then  emperor,  hearing  of  his 
return,  and  fearing  another  commotion,  sent  orders  to  his 
prefect  to  apprehend  him. 

The  saint  again  fled,  saying  to  his  friends,  "  Let  us  retire  a 
little  while  :  it  is  a  small  cloud,  and  will  soon  pass."  His  pur- 
suers pressed  hard  upon  him  ;  but,  eluding  them  by  artifice, 
he  returned  privately  to  the  city,  and  remained  concealed  till 
the  storm  was  over.  Upon  the  accession  of  Jovian,  a.  d.  363, 
he  reappeared,  and,  during  his  reign,  retained  possession  of  his 

*  Philostorgius  (lib.  vii.  c.  2)  says  that  the  violence  was  committed  at  the 
instigation  of  Athanasius.  The  character  of  the  Arian  bishop  is  said  to  have 
been  stained  with  many  vices.  It  is  a  curious  circumstance  that  he  should 
have  been  afterwards  transformed  into  the  "  renowned  St.  George  of  England, 
the  patron  of  arms,  of  chivalry,  and  of  the  garter."  The  transformation,  says 
Gibbon,  though  "  not  absolutely  certain,"  is  "  extremely  probable." 


WRITINGS   OF   ATHANASIUS.  279 

Beat.  Under  Valens,  the  Arian  emperor,  he  was  again  com- 
pelled to  leave  Alexandria.  He  retired,  and  concealed  him- 
self four  months  in  the  tomb  of  his  father.  His  friends  at 
Alexandria  were  overwhelmed  with  sadness,  and  the  emperor 
was  induced  to  recall  him.  He  became  afterwards  embroiled 
with  the  Governor  of  Libya,  whom  he  had  excommunicated ; 
but  kept  possession  of  his  see  till  his  death.  He  ended  a  life 
of  toil  and  wanderings,  a.  d.  373 ;  having  been  bishop  forty- 
six  years,  of  which  twenty  were  passed  in  exile  or  conceal- 
ment.* 

His  writings,  which  are  numerous,  relate  mostly  to  the  con- 
troversies of  the  times,  and  contain  several  elaborate  vindica- 
tions of  his  character.!  He  treats  the  charges  of  his  enemies 
against  him  as  calumnies,  and  strongly  asserts,  and  sometimes 
at  least,  proves,  his  innocence.  But  he  was  forced  to  contend, 
not  only  against  their  calumnies,  as  he  pronounces  them,  but 
their  arguments  in  defence  of  their  theological  opinions  ;  and 
these  he  seems  to  have  sometimes  found  it  difficult  to  refute. 
He  says  they  were  continually  asking  captious,  absurd,  and 
impious  questions  ;  to  which,  it  appears,  he  could  sometimes 
reply  only  by  raising  the  cry  of  "  blasphemy."  He  compares 
the  Arians  to  madmen,  dogs,  and  swine.  J  They  contended 
that  the  expression,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one,"  could  not 
prove  the  Son  to  be  of  the  substance  of  the  Father ;  for  Jesus 
prays  that  his  disciples  "  may  be  one,  even  as  he  and  the  Father 
were  one."  But,  in  this  reasoning,  Athanasius  could  see  only 
"  indescribable  temerity  "  and  "  diabolical  madness."  They 
urged  the  texts,  "All  power  is  given  unto  me  ";  "  The  Father 
hath  committed  all  judgment  to  the  Son  ";  and  from  his  agony 
and  prayer,  he  says,  they  concluded  that  he  could  not  be  God 
by  nature.  Again :  had  he  been  the  proper  wisdom  of  the 
Father,  "  How  could  it  be  said  that  he  grew  in  wisdom  ?  "  and 

*  Socrates  devotes  several  chapters,  or  parts  of  chapters,  in  the  first  foui 
books  of  his  history  to  Athanasius ;  Sozoraen,  in  his  first  six  books  ;  and  The- 
odoret,  in  liis  first  four. 

t  See  particularly  his  Apol.  cont.  Arianos. 

I  Dr.  Stanley,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Eastern  Church,"  gives  an  amusing 
list  of  his  favorite  epithets  for  the  Arians.  They  are  "  devils,  Antichrists, 
maniacs,  dogs,  wolves,  lions,  hares,  chameleons,  hydras,  eels,  cuttle-fish,  gnats 
beetles,  leeches."     Such  names  passed  with  Athanasius  for  arguments. 


280        ARIUS,  AND  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

"  hoAV  could  he  be  ignorant  of  the  day  of  judgment  ?  "  In 
reply  to  these  and  similar  arguments,  they  get  a  great  deal  of 
abuse  :  they  are  denounced  as  impious ;  and  their  audacity  is 
compared  to  that  of  the  Jews,  who  stoned  Jesus  for  speaking 
of  his  divinity.  They  were  perfect  hydras.  They  were  al- 
ways ready  with  some  new  turn  or  new  argument.  Though 
refuted  by  him,  they  were  not  silenced ;  and,  though  he  had 
shown  them  "destitute  of  all  sense,"  they  did  not  "blush." 
He  quotes  from  the  "  Thalia"  of  Arius,  and  exclaims,  at  such 
"  impious  words,  how  shall  not  universal  nature  stand  aghast, 
and  all  men  stop  their  ears  and  shut  their  eyes,  that  they  may 
not  hear  those  things,  nor  see  him  who  has  written  them !  " 

Athanasius,  however,  possessed  several  of  the  requisites  of 
a  skilful  champion.  He  was  bold,  resolute,  and  subtle,  and 
MTote  in  a  style  of  strong,  though  sometimes  rude,  eloquence. 
His  spirit  was  indomitable.  He  was  persevering  and  inflex- 
ible ;  but  his  temper  was  arbitrary  and  domineei'ing,  and  his 
constancy  was  not  without  a  tincture  of  obstinacy.  He  was 
excelled  in  learning  by  several  of  his  contemporaries,  particu- 
larly by  Eusebius  of  Csesarea ;  and  by  many,  we  trust,  in  the 
meek  and  gentle  graces  of  the  Christian.  His  piety,  and  love 
of  truth,  we  have  no  disposition  to  call  in  question ;  yet  the 
history  of  his  life  would  seem  to  authorize  the  suspicion,  that 
he  was  influenced  rather  by  motives  of  pride  and  ambition 
than  by  a  desire  to  promote  the  peace  of  the  Church.  He 
would  set  all  Christendom  in  a  flame  sooner  than  relinquish 
the  patriarchal  throne  of  Alexandria. 

He  was  capable  of  inspiring  warm  friendships.  He  was  a 
strong  advocate  for  monkery.  He  wrote  the  life  of  a  certain 
hermit,  whose  name  was  Antony  ;  and  was  amply  repaid  by 
the  affection  and  gratitude  of  the  order.  In  the  season  of  his 
deepest  adversity,  the  monks  remained  faithful.  They  opened 
the  doors  of  their  monasteries  to  him  ;  concealed  him  in  the 
desert,  where  they  visited  him  ;  ministered  to  his  wants  ;  gave 
him  intelligence  of  the  approach  of  danger ;  and,  in  various 
ways,  evinced  their  attachment  to  his  person. 

His  orthodoxy,  particularly  in  the  earlier  part  of  his  life, 
will  not  stand  the  test  of  subsequent  times,  as  he  did  not  admit 
the  Son  to  be   of  one  individual  essence  with  the  Father, 


CHARACTER   OP   ATHANASIUS.  281 

though  he  believed  him  to  possess  the  same  specific  nature.* 
It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add,  that  the  Creed  which  bears  his 
name  is  the  production  of  a  later  age.f 

*  Not  fiovoovaioi,  or  ravToovaiog,  but  hfioovaioi.  The  former  terms,  expres- 
sive of  individual  or  numerical  identity  of  substance,  were  then  rejected. 

t  Gibbon's  account  of  Athanasius  forms  one  of  the  most  splendid  chapters 
in  his  History.  His  portrait  of  the  saint,  however,  is  an  exceedingly  flattering 
one.  The  temptation  was  great,  to  be  sure.  Athanasius  had  several  heroic 
qualities  ;  he  led  a  life  of  adventure  ;  and  a  writer  possessing  Gibbon's  pow- 
ers of  description  could  not  wish  for  a  finer  subject.  He  could  be  just  to 
Athanasius,  as  one  has  said,  "  even  when  Julian  was  his  persecutor."  Gib- 
bon had  the  art,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  of  falsifying  iiistory,  without  absQ- 
lutely  misstating  facts.  Athanasius  and  Julian  were  very  different  characters. 
But  a  person  will  get  just  about  as  correct  an  idea  of  the  one  as  of  the  other 
from  the  "  luminous  pages  "  of  Gibbon. 

The  very  slight  sketch  we  have  given  of  the  character  of  Athanasius  we 
believe  to  be  sufficiently  favorable.  Others  have  spoken  of  his  infirmities  of 
temper  in  terms  much  stronger  tlian  any  we  have  employed.  "Athanasius'a 
Epistle  to  the  Monks,"  says  tlie  learned  Limborch,  "  is  proof  enough  of  hia 
ungovernable  and  angry  temper,  in  which  we  find  nothing  but  foul  and  re- 
proachful language  against  the  Arians  ;  a  plain  proof  of  a  violently  disordered 
mind."  —  History  of  the  Inquisition,  ch.  4. 


282        AKIUS,  AND  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

The  Nicene  Faith.  —  Meaning  of  "  Consubstantial."  —  Athanasius's 
Explanation  of  it.  —  Father  and  Son  relatively  Unequal:  so 
THE  Council  of  Nice  taught.  —  Sentiments  of  the  Orthodox 
afterwards  undergo  a  Change.  —  The  Holt  Spirit  not  defined 
BY  THE  Council.  —  Not  as  yet  Safe  to  speak  of  its  Divinity. — 
Variations.  —  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  still  unsettled. 

It  may  be  asked,  in  conclusion,  What  did  the  council  of 
Nice  accomplish  ?  What,  in  reality,  was  the  Nicene  faith  ? 
How  far  did  it  differ  from  that  of  the  learned  Christians  of 
preceding  centuries?  how  far  from  that  of  subsequent  times, 
after  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  in  a  manner  defined  and 
settled  ? 

First,  what  did  the  Fathers  of  the  council  mean  when  they 
said  that  the  Son  was  consul stantial  with  the  Father  ?  We 
have  seen  the  construction  which  Eusebius  puts  on  the  term, 
and  which  he  says  received  the  sanction  of  the  council.  They 
intended  to  assert  that  the  Son  was  "in  all  respects  like  the 
Father,"  and  "  unlike  all  creatures  made  by  him,"  in  opposi- 
tion to  Arius,  who  maintained  that  he  was  a  creature,  and 
therefore  not  strictly  divine.  This  was  the  meaning  which 
the  term  then  bore,  as  learned  Trinitarian  critics  (Petavius, 
Cudworth,  Le  Clerc,  and  others)  admit  and  prove.  It  ex- 
pressed, not  numerical  identity  of  substance,  but  sameness  of 
kind.  One  man  is  of  the  same  substance  or  nature  with 
another,  as  they  belong  to  the  same  order  of  beings.  So  the 
Son  of  God  is  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father:  he 
partakes,  in  common  with  him,  of  a  divine,  though  not  of  the 
same  individual  nature.  Divine  begets  divine,  as  human 
begets  human.  The  distinction  between  person  and  being  was 
unknown  to  the  Fathers:  it  is  a  refinement  of  latter  times. 
The  Father  and  Son  had  the  same  specific  nature,  yet  con- 
stituted distinct  subsistences,  persons,  beings,*     Such  was  the 

*  The  very  term  "  consubstantial "  implies  two.  We  never  say  that  a 
thing  is  consubstantial  with  itself. 


THE    NICENE    FAITH.  283 

doctrine  of  all  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers,  unless  by  the  expres- 
sion, "  of  a  different  substance,"  which  some  of  tliem  applied 
to  the  Son,  they  mean  to  teach  something  more  than  that  he 
had  an  individual  existence  distinct  from  the  Father. 

The  Fathers  of  Nice  taught  no  other  doctrine.  The  term 
"  consubstantial  "  was  not  first  introduced  by  them.  Athana- 
sius  tells  us  that  it  had  been  used  befoi*e.  The  seventy  Fa- 
thers of  the  second  council  of  Antioch,  which  condemned  the 
errors  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  he  admits,  rejected  it,  and  decreed 
that  the  Son  was  not  consubstantial  with  the  Father  ;  and  he 
attempts  to  apologize  for  them  by  referring  to  the  nature  of  the 
controversy  in  which  they  were  engaged.*  But  some  Fathers, 
he  says,  had  used  it.  In  what  sense  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
understood  it,  Ave  have  already  seen.  His  explanation  of  it 
does  not  differ  materially  from  that  of  Eusebius.  Athanasius's 
explanation  of  the  sense  in  which  it  was  used  by  the  council 
of  Nice  is  similar.  The  Son  has  "  no  similitude  to  creatures, 
nor  is  cognate  with  them  ";  he  is  the  "  true  offspring  of  the 
substance  of  the  Father."  "  The  substance  of  the  Father  was 
the  beginning,  the  root,  and  fountain  of  the  Son,  who  has  a 
true  likeness  to  Him  that  begat  him ;  and  is  not  separated  from 
the  Father,  as  we  are,  by  being  of  a  substance  foreign  to  his." 
Again  :  he  has  the  same  relation  to  the  Father  as  a  ray  to  the 
sun,  or  a  branch  to  the  vine  ;  for  the  "  branches  ai'e  consub- 
stantial with  the  vine,  of  the  same  sort,  and  inseparable." 
Again  :  when  we  speak  of  identity  or  sameness,  he  says,  we 
refer,  riot  to  any  accidental  distinction,  but  to  substances  or 
essences.  One  man  "  is  of  the  same  nature  with  another  as 
regards  substance."  But  "  a  man  and  a  dog  are  of  different 
natures :  therefore  what  is  of  the  same  nature  is  consubstantial; 
what  is  of  a  different  nature  is  of  another  substance,"  or  not 
consubstantial. f 

*  De  Si/n.  Arim.  et  Selene. 

t  De  St/n.  Arim.  et  Seleuc,  cc.  33-45,  and  52-54  ;  De  Syn.  Nic.  Decret.,  cc.  19, 
20-25,  27  ;  De  Sent.  Dionijsii;  Epist.  ii.  et  iii.  ad  Serap.  Dionysius  is  one  of 
Athanasius's  principal  authorities  to  show  that  the  Fathers  of  Nice  did  not 
'•  invent  for  themselves  "  the  term  consubstantial.  He  gives  the  letter  of 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria  to  him  of  Rome  twice.  {De  Syn.  Nic.  Decret.,  and 
De  Syn.  Arim.  et  Seleuc.)  In  this  letter  Dionysius  says  :  "  I  instanced  a  hu- 
man production  which  is  clearly  congeneric,  and  I  observed  that  undeniably 


284  ARIUS,    AND    THE    ASIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

Such  is  the  explanation  which  this  celebrated  champion  of 
the  Trinity  gives  of  the  meaning  of  the  term,  as  used  by  the 
Fathers  of  the  synod  of  Nice  and  by  himself  Christ  was  by 
birth  God,  as  man  is  by  birth  man.  There  is  one  species  of 
divinity,  as  one  species  of  humanity ;  and,  as  all  men  are  of 
the  same  substance  (that  is,  all  human),  so  the  Father  and  Son 
are  of  the  same  substance  (that  is,  both  divine).  This,  if  we 
may  truly  believe  Eusebius  and  Athanasius,  is  all  which  they 
meant  by  the  term.  We  know  that  it  originally  bore  this  sense, 
and  these  two  witnesses — one  of  whom  was  partial  to  its  use, 
and  the  other  opposed  to  it  —  tell  us  that  it  was  used  by  the 
Fathers  of  the  council  in  no  other.  It  is  needless  to  intro- 
duce further  evidence.* 

Specific  sameness  implies  a  sort  of  natural  equality ;  yet  the 
Father  and  Son  might  be  relatively  unequal,  and  were  so  con- 
sidered. The  one  gave^  and  the  other  received.  The  one  was 
without  cause,  unbegotten,  God  originally  and  of  himself:  the 
other  was  a  God  by  derivation  or  birth,  and  not  originally  in 
and  of  himself.  They  were  united,  however,  in  will,  purpose, 
and  affection.  There  was  but  one  original  Fountain  of  divin- 
ity, one  supreme  first  Cause  ;  and  therefore  the  unity  of  God, 
in  a  certain  loose  sense,  was,  as  it  was  thought,  preserved.  So 
the  preceding  Fathers  believed  ;  and  we  have  no  proof  that 
the  Fathers  of  Nice  entertained  any  other  views.  Their  creed 
certainly  teaches  no  other.  It  recognizes  one  unbegotten, 
uncaused  Being ;  and  one  begotten,  dependent,  and  derived. 
Read  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  for  the  term  "  consubstantial  " 
substitute  the  phrase,  "  having,  as  the  Son  of  God,  a  divine 
nature,"  which  is  equivalent  to  it  as  used  by  the  Fathers  of 
the  council,  and  you  have  two  beings  such  as  we  have  de- 
fathers  diflfered  from  their  children  only  in  not  being  the  same  individuals." 
That  is,  there  is  a  generic,  not  an  individual  identity.  Tiiis  is  what  was 
meant  by  consubstantial. 

*  We  mean  not  to  affirm  that  there  was  entire  unanimity  of  opinion  among 
the  Fathers  of  the  council  on  this  subject.  This,  we  know,  was  not  the  case. 
The  term  in  question  was  obscure,  and,  in  some  sort,  ambiguous  ;  but  it  was 
all  the  better  for  that,  provided  it  had  the  effect  of  stigmatizing  the  Arians, 
since  it  allowed  a  certain  latitude  of  opinion  among  the  orthodox  Fathers. 
Tliat  the  prominent  idea  conveyed  by  it,  however,  was  such  as  we  have 
stated,  admits  of  no  reasonable  doubt. 


THE  FATHERS  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  THE  SYNOD.     285 

scribed.  We  do  not  perceive  that  in  sentimetit  they  differed 
in  any  essential  particular  from  the  Fathers  who  went  before 
them.  If  they  used  the  terra  "  consubstantial  "  in  the  sense 
which  afterwards  obtained,  however,  they  certainly  did  differ 
from  them,  and  were  innovators.  But  we  are  convinced,  as 
we  have  said,  that  they  did  not  so  use  it.  If  we  may  believe 
their  own  statements,  they  certainly  did  not. 

Some  time  after  the  council,  however,  and  even  during  the 
lifetime  of  Athanasius,  the  opinions  of  the  orthodox  began  to 
undergo  a  real  and  important  change;  and  the  council  undoubt- 
edly contributed  to  this  change,  inadvertently,  by  the  intro- 
duction of  a  term  capable  of  a  sense  very  different  from  that 
originally  attributed  to  it  by  the  Platonists  and  Platonizing 
Fathers.  Thus  the  term,  which,  at  the  time  it  was  adopted, 
was  understood  to  express  only  specific  sameness  of  natui'e, 
was  afterwards  employed  to  signify  individual  identity  ;  and 
subsequent  times,  while  they  have  retained  the  language,  have 
departed  widely  from  the  sentiments,  of  the  Nicene  Fathers. 

The  principal  points  of  difference  between  the  views  of  the 
Fathers  who  lived  before  the  synod,  and  the  asserters  of  the 
genuine  Trinity  afterwards,  may  be  stated  in  few  words.  The 
former  taught  the  supremacy  of  the  Father,  and  the  real  and 
proper  inferiority  of  the  Son,  without  qualification ;  making 
them,  in  fact,  two  beings.  The  latter  asserted,  not  simply  an 
equality  of  nature  between  the  Father  and  Son,  but  their  indi- 
vidual and  numerical  identity ;  though  this  was  not  originally 
the  doctrine  of  Athanasius,  nor  of  the  Church  till  some  time 
after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  The  former  main- 
tained, generally,  that  the  Son  was  voluntarily  begotten  of  the 
Father  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  but  not  from  eternity ; 
the  latter,  that  he  was  necessarily  begotten,  from  eternity. 
Whether  they  attached  any  ideas  to  these  terms,  we  will  not 
undertake  to  say. 

There  was  a  very  remarkable  difference,  too,  in  the  manner 
in  which  the  advocates  of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  before  and 
some  time  after  the  Council  of  Nice,  endeavored  to  repel  the 
charge  urged  against  them  by  their  adversaries,  of  introducing 
two  Gods.  The  former,  in  reply  to  the  objections  of  Praxeas, 
Noetus,  Sabellius,  and  their  followers,  asserted  that  they  wor- 


286  ARIUS,    AND    THE    ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

shipped  the  one  only  and  true  God,  who  is  over  all,  supreme  ; 
that  the  Son  was  inferior,  another,  different,  —  diflerent  in 
essence,  the  minister  of  the  Father,  and  in  all  respects  subject 
to  his  will,  and  entitled,  therefore,  to  only  inferior  homage. 
Of  these  and  similar  expressions,  however,  the  Ai'ians  took 
advantage  ;  and  they  were,  therefore,  gradually  dropped. 
The  ground  of  defence  was  changed.  Instead  of  saying  that 
the  Son  was  a  different  being  from  the  Father,  and  inferior  to 
him,  the  orthodox  began  to  allege  that  they  Avere  of  one  indi- 
vidual essence  ;  and,  therefore,  there  was  only  one  object  of 
supreme  worship.  There  were  many  passages  of  Scripture, 
however,  which  pressed  hard  upon  this  doctrine,  and  which 
seemed  at  least  to  speak  of  the  Son  as  inferior  to  the  Father. 
It  was  at  this  time  that  the  fiction  of  the  two  natures  in  Jesus 
Christ  was  introduced,  and  then  all  difficulties  vanished.  The 
Son,  as  God,  was  co-equal  with  the  Father;  as  man,  he  was 
inferior  :  as  God,  he  could  send  ;  as  man,  he  could  be  sent : 
in  his  human  nature,  he  could  pray  to  himself  in  his  divine  ; 
as  man,  he  could  assert  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  day  of 
judgment,  which,  as  God,  he  knew. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  however,  was  of  very  gradual 
formation.  The  learned  Huet,  a  Trinitarian,  confesses  that 
"  so  late  as  the  time  of  Basil,"  who  flourished  after  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century,  "  and  still  later,  the  Catholics  dared  not 
openly  acknowledge  the  divinity  of  the  Spirit."  * 

Fetavius  bears  similar  testimony.  In  the  heading  of  one  of 
his  articles  he  says  that  "  most  Catholics  dared  not  profess  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  be  God,  and  the  Oecumenical  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople does  not  expressly  call  it  God."  He  says  that  the 
first  council  which  decreed  expressly  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
to  be  regarded  as  God,  was  that  of  Alexandria,  over  which 
Athanasius  presided,  a.  d.  362. f  The  Constantinopolitan 
Council  was  held  about  twenty  years  later. 

Neander  has  well  observed,  that  the  Spirit  is  "  only  adverted 
to  in  very  general  ternis  in  the  Nicene  Creed."  The  clause 
in  Avhich  it  is  referred  to  is,  simply,  "  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit "  ; 
that  is,  supplying  the  ellipsis,  "  We  believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 


*  Origeniana,  lib.  ii.  c.  ii.  quaast.  2,  §  10. 
t  Dogmat.  TheoL,  t.  ii.  lib.  i.  c.  14. 


THE    NICENE    CREED    NOT    TRINITARIAN.  287 

And  SO  do  we  ;  so  do  all  Christians.  All  believe  in  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  this  language  — the  language  of  the  creed  —  ex- 
plains nothing,  defines  nothing.  It  does  not  tell  us  whether 
the  Spirit  is  a  person,  or  an  influence  ;  a  breathing  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  into  the  soul  of  the  believer,  or  something  else.  Had 
the  Fathers  of  the  council  believed  it  to  be  a  person  co-equal 
or  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  why  not  say  so  ?  That 
they  did  not  so  declare,  affords,  we  think,  conclusive  evidence 
that  they  did  not  so  believe.  Certainly  the  ci'eed,  compared 
with  modern  expositions  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  con- 
sisting of  a  co-equal  Three,  is  sadly  defective.  There  is  noth- 
ing in  it,  so  far  as  the  Spirit  is  concerned,  which  would  exclude 
Arius.  He  believed  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  "It  has  been  alleged," 
says  Neander,  "  that,  at  that  time,  there  was  no  controversy 
respecting  it  [the  Spirit.]  But  this  ground  is  not  correct ;  for 
it  is  evident,  from  the  express  statement  of  Athanasius,  that 
Arius  applied  the  doctrine  of  subordination  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  placed  the  same  distance  between  the  Son  and  the  Spirit 
as  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  ";  which,  we  add,  was 
Origen's  doctrine.  "  Even  as  late  as  A.  D.  380,"  Neander  ob- 
serves "great  indistinctness  prevailed  among  different  parties 
respecting  this  dogma,  so  that  even  Gregory  Nazianzen  could 
say,  '  Some  of  our  theologians  regard  the  Spirit  simply  as  a 
mode  of  divine  operation ;  others,  as  a  creature  of  God ;  others, 
as  God  himself;  others,  again,  say  that  they  know  not  which  of 
these  opinions  to  accept,  from  their  reverence  for  Holy  Writ, 
which  says  nothing  upon  it.'  Hilary  of  Poictiers,  a  Nicene 
theologian,"  expresses  himself  in  a  similar  way,  and  "  does  not 
venture  to  attribute  to  the  Spirit  the  name  of  God,  because 
the  Scripture  does  not  expressly  so  call  him."  Again  : 
"  Though  Basil  of  Csesarea  wished  to  teach  the  divinity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  his  church,  he  only  ventured  to  introduce  it 
gradually."  *  These  are  significant  facts,  which  are  wholly 
inexplicable  on  the  supposition  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
was  the  old  doctrine,  —  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicene  Council 
even. 

We  have  said  that  the  Fathers  of  Nice  did  not  greatly  inno- 
vate in  doctrine.     The  Council  of  Constantinople  (the  second 
*  Neander,  Hist.  Christ.  Dogmas,  pp.  303-305. 


288  ARIUS,    AND   THE   ARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 

general  council),  called  a.  d.  381,  adopted  the  creed  of  Nice 
with  an  additional  clause,  declaring  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  tc 
be  worshipped  and  glorified  together  with  the  Father  and  Son. 
"  This  creed,"  says  Du  Pin,  "  was  not  at  first  received  by  all 
churches,  and  there  were  some  that  would  add  nothing  to  the 
Nicene  Creed.  For  this  cause  it  was,  perhaps,  that  no  other 
creed  but  that  of  Nice  was  read  in  the  Council  of  Ephesus  [the 
third  general  council]  ;  and  there  it  was  also  forbidden  to  make 
use  of  any  other."  *  This  carries  us  to  near  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century.  Philostorgius  tells  us  that  Flavian  of  Antioch, 
in  an  assembly  of  his  monks,  was  the  first  who  "  shouted 
forth  "  the  doxology,  "  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son, 
and  to  the  Holy  Spirit ":  for  before  that  time,  he  says,  the 
usual  form  was,  "  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  through  the  Son,  in 
the  Holy  Spirit  ";  though  some  said,  "  Glory  be  to  the  Father, 
in  the  Son,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  f  After  all,  however,  the 
question,  "  What  is  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?  "  remains 
unsettled.  The  orthodox  or  consubstantial  faith  was  designed 
to  occupy  the  middle  ground  between  Sabellianism  and  Arian- 
ism.  These  were  the  Scylla  and  Charybdis  the  Fathers  were 
so  anxious  to  shun.  In  their  solicitude  to  avoid  Sabellianism, 
they  came  near  being  ingulfed  in  the  vortex  of  Arianism. 
From  the  brink  of  this  dreadful  abyss,  they  started  back  with 
terror ;  and,  from  that  period  to  the  present,  the  "  good  ship  " 
Orthodoxy  has  been  tossed  about  by  uncertain  winds  ;  and, 
when  she  has  seemed  to  have  found  a  safe  anchorage,  time  has 
soon  shown  that  she  was  moored  upon  shifting  sands. 

The  Nicene  Fathers  led  the  way,  by  "  converting,"  as  it 
has  been  said,  "  what  was  before  a  scholastic  subtilty  into  an 
article  of  the  Catholic  faith."  In  doing  this,  they  made  use 
of  a  very  flexible  term,  which  was  capable  of  a  signification 
entirely  different  from  the  received  one.  Other  mischief  they 
did,  from  the  consequences  of  which  the  world  has  not  yet 
recovered.  They  encouraged,  by  their  example,  the  pernicious 
practice  of  creed-making  ;  and  bequeathed,  as  a  legacy  to  after 
ages,  the  monstrous  doctrine,  that  error,  or  supposed  error,  of 
opinion,  may  be   lawfully  punished  as  crime.     The   Arians, 

*  Eccles.  Hist.,  vol.  ii.  p.  272,  and  vol.  iv.  p.  200,  Lond.  169.3. 
t  Uist.,  Ub.  iu.  c.  13. 


CREED-MAKING.  289 

when  they  had  the  power,  showed  themselves  too  wilHng  to 
tread  in  their  steps.  There  was  this  difference,  however,  as 
Dr.  Jortin  observes,  between  the  creeds  of  the  Arians  and 
those  of  the  Orthodox :  "  The  Consubstantiahsts  drew  up  their 
creed  with  a  view  to  exclude  and  distress  the  Arians.  The 
Arians  had  no  design  to  distress  the  Consubstantiahsts,  but 
usually  proposed  creeds  to  which  Athanasius  himself  might  have 
assented ;  so  that,  if  the  compilers  were  Arians,  their  creeds 
were  not  Arian."*  So  far,  the  Arians  showed  a  better  spirit 
than  their  oppressors. 

The  Nicene  Creed  had  been,  to  use  the  expression  of  Ne- 
ander,  originally  '■'•forced  upon  the  Oriental  Church  ";  and 
what  evils  hence  flowed,  what  disputes  arose,  and  what  baleful 
passions  were  lighted  up,  history  clearly  teaches.  At  the 
commencement  of  the  controversy,  the  Arians  were  the  advo- 
cates of  freedom,  intellectual  and  religious  ;  and  their  party 
embraced  several  of  the  best  minds  of  the  age.  If  afterwards 
they  became  changed  in  temper  and  feelings,  the  fact  shows 
only  that  they  were  not  exempt  from  the  imperfections  of  our 
common  nature. 

*  Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History 
19 


EUSEBIUS    THE    HISTORIAN. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Claims  of  Eusebius  to  our  Notice.  —  His  Early  Life.  —  Bishop  op 
Cesarea.  —  His  Studies.  —  The  Arian  Controversy.  —  The  Part 
he  took  at  the  Council  of  Nice.  —  Subscribes  the  Creed.  —  His 
Pastoral  Letter  in  Explanation. — Want  of  Firmness.  —  Presides 
AT  the  Council  of  Tyre.  —  Dedication  of  the  Church  of  5"HB 
Holy  Sepulchre.  —  The  Emperor  warmly  attached  to  him.  — 
Death  and  Character.  —  His  Real  Belief.  —  Not  a  Consubstan- 
tialist.  —  Held  the  Old  Doctrine  of  the  Derived  Nature  and 
Inferiority  of  the  Son. — Proofs  from  his  Writings. 

In  our  former  chapters,  we  have  often  referred  to  the  au- 
thority of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea ;  and,  in  connection  with  Arius 
and  the  Arian  controversy,  he  appears  a  prominent  figure  on 
the  stage  of  action.  He  hved  at  a  period  when  theological 
opinions  were  in  a  transition  state,  but  leaned  rather  to  the  old 
than  the  new.  His  name  will  be  ever  honored ;  though  less, 
perhaps,  for  his  intrinsic  merit,  —  which,  however,  is  by  no 
means  small, — than  on  account  of  the  position  he  occupies  as 
the  father  of  ecclesiastical  history.  He  is  not  the  oldest 
Christian  historian  ;  for  he  was  preceded  by  Hegesippus,  —  a 
writer  in  all  respects,  it  would  seem,  his  inferior.  But  of 
Hegesippus  only  a  few  small  fragments  remain,  preserved 
mainly  in  the  pages  of  Eusebius  himself.  To  the  latter  we  are 
indebted  for  a  multitude  of  facts  relating  to  Christian  antiquity, 
which,  but  for  him,  would  have  been  buried  in  oblivion. 

Of  the  early  life  of  Eusebius  little   is  known.     The  work 

of  his  biographer,  Acacius,*  who  was  his  pupil,  and  successor 

in  the  see  of  Csesarea,  has  unfortunately  perished  ;  and,  from 

the  few  incidental  notices  of  himself  in  his  own  writings,  we 

*  Socrates,  Hist.,  ii.  4. 


INCIDENTS    OF    HIS    LIFE.  291 

can  glean  but  little.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  he  was 
born  about  the  year  270  ;  though,  if  he  had  Dionysius  of  Alex- 
andria, the  famous  Paul  of  Saniosata,  and  the  Emperor  Gal- 
lienus,  for  his  contemporaries,  — as  some  expressions  employed 
by  him  Avould  seem  to  imply,*  —  we  must  assign  to  his  birth 
a  somewhat  earlier  date.  Of  his  parents  no  certain  tradition 
is  preserved.  Nicephorus,  indeed,  a  writer  entitled  to  little 
respect,  makes  him  (upon  what  authority  he  does  not  inform 
us)  a  nephew  of  Pamphilus  ;  and  others  have  called  him  his 
son.  But  neither  account  is  in  the  least  probable.  For  Pam- 
philus, we  know,  he  cherished  a  lively  and  constant  affection, 
and,  after  his  death  by  martyrdom,  took  his  name  ;  but,  from 
the  language  of  Eusebins  himself,  he  appears  to  have  stood  to 
him  in  no  relation  of  natural  affinity. 

It  has  been  generally  supposed,  and  probably  Avith  truth, 
that  Eusebins  Avas  a  native  of  Palestine,  and  perhaps  of  Caesa- 
rea  ;  where,  as  he  informs  us  in  his  letter  to  his  people  from 
Nice, I  he  was  instructed  in  the  Christian  faith,  and  baptized. 
In  his  youth  he  must  have  been  a  diligent  student ;  for  he  had 
great  store  of  such  secular  learning  as  a  knowledge  of  Greek 
(probably  his  native  tongue,  and  the  only  one  with  which  he 
seems  to  have  been  familiar)  placed  within  his  reach.  He 
was  admitted  to  the  priesthood  by  Agapius,  whom  he  after- 
wards succeeded  in  the  office  of  bishop ;  unless,  with  some,  Ave 
assign  an  intervening  episcopate  of  tAvo  or  three  years  to 
Agricolaus.^  Among  his  fellow-presbyters  Avas  Pamphilus, 
already  alluded  to  ;  with  Avhom  he  lived  in  the  intimacy  of 
the  strictest  friendship,  and  Avhose  memory  he  never  ceased  to 
honor.  Pamphilus  Avas  born,  probably,  at  Berytus  ;  though 
Photius  makes  him  a  native  of  Phoenicia.  He  Avas  a  pupil  of 
the  celebrated  Pierius  of  Alexandria,  called,  for  his  learning, 
a  second  Origen.  Pamphilus  himself  Avas  a  Avarm  admirer  of 
Origen :  he  collected  and  transcribed  his  Avorks  ;  and,  Avhile 
in  prison,  employed  himself,  in  conjunction  with  Eusebius,  in 
Avriting  his  "  Apology,"  of  which  five  books  were  finished  before 

*  Hist.,  iii.  28  ;  v.  28  ;   vii.  26. 
t  Socrates,  Hist.,  i.  8;  Theod.,  Hist.,  i.  12. 

X  This  name  is  sometimes  placed  on  the  catalogue  of  the  Bishops  of  Caesarea, 
between  Agapius  and  Eusebius  ;  probably,  however,  without  reason. 


292  EUSEBIUS    THE    HISTORIAN. 

his  death,  and  the  sixth  added  afterwards  by  his  surviving 
companion.  He  Avas  fond  of  hterature,  and  assiduous,  es- 
pecially in  the  study  of  the  Scriptures.  He  led  a  strict  and 
philosophic  life.  He  was  resolute  and  persevering  in  whatever 
he  undertook,  and  was  remarkable  for  his  benevolence.  He 
cherished  the  cause  of  education  and  knowledge.  He  was  a 
fi'iend  of  the  studious,  and  founded  a  theological  school  and  an 
extensive  library  at  Csesarea ;  of  the  latter  of  which,  some 
memorials  are  said  still  to  exist  in  the  collections  of  Europe.  He 
suffered  martyrdom  in  the  year  309,  after  an  imprisonment  of 
two  years,  during  which  he  constantly  enjoyed  the  solace  of 
his  friend's  society.  In  token  of  his  grateful  respect  and  affec- 
tion, the  latter  wrote  his  life,  in  three  books,  now,  however, 
lost ;  and,  in  his  "  History,"  he  seems  never  weary  of  nam- 
ing him,  and  always  in  terms  of  tender  regard  or  glowing 
panegyric* 

After  the  death  of  Pamphilus,  as  it  appears,  and  before  the 
end  of  the  persecution  called  Diocletian's,  Eusebius  visited  his 
friend  Paulinus  at  Tyre  ;  where,  as  he  tells  us,  he  was  witness 
of  the  sufferings  and  constancy  of  the  martyrs. f  He  after- 
wards beheld  the  sad  spectacle  of  the  cruelties  to  which  they 
were  subjected  in  Egypt  and  Thebais,^  and  was  himself 
thrown  into  prison.  It  was  insinuated  by  his  enemies  that 
he  escaped  martyrdom  at  the  expense  of  his  integrity  and 
honor  as  a  Christian  ;  but  the  reproach  seems  to  have  been 
undeserved.  § 

*  Hist,  vi.  32 ;  vii.  32;  viii.  18  ;  De  Mart.  PalcBst.,  cc.  7,  11.  See  also  Soc- 
rates, Hist.,  iii.  7  ;  Jerome,  De  Vir.  Illust.,  c.  75;  also  Adu.  Ruf.,  and  Epist.  41, 
al.  65,  ad  Pammach  et  Ocean. 

t  Hist.,  viii.  7.  t  Ibid.,  viii.  9. 

§  Tlie  insinuation,  in  fact,  is  destitute  of  all  support,  and  the  charge  very 
improbable.  It  was  not  made  at  the  time,  nor  until  some  years  afterwards, 
when  the  part  which  Eusebius  took  in  the  Arian  controversy  had  raised  up  to 
him  bitter  and  scornful  enemies.  It  was  first  brought  forward,  we  believe,  by 
Potamon,  an  Egyptian  bishop,  and  an  adherent  of  Athanasius.  Potamon,  a 
man  accustomed  to  use  the  utmost  license  of  speech  (as  Epiphanius,  on  whom 
the  authority  of  the  anecdote  rests,  admits),  indignant  at  seeing  Athanasius, 
at  the  Council  of  Tyre,  stand  in  the  character  of  a  culprit,  while  Eusebius  and 
others  were  seated  as  his  judges,  suddenly  bursts  out  in  a  strain  of  loud  in- 
vective :  "  Is  this,"  says  he,  addressing  Eusebius,  "  to  be  endured  1  Tell  me, 
were  you  not  with  me  in  custody  during  the  persecution  1  I,  indeed,  lost  an 
eye  in  the  cause  of  truth  ;  but  you  appear  unmutilated  in  person :  you  live, 


CHARGE    AGAINST    HIM.  293 

But  pei'secution  had  now  ceased ;  and  it  is  not  surprising 
that  Christians  were  exultant.  Eusebius  depicts  those  days 
in  warm  and  glowing  colors.  A  wonderful  revolution,  indeed, 
had  taken  place  in  the  fortunes  of  the  disciples  of  the  cross. 
They  had  triumphed  ;  they  were  free  ;  and  the  remembrance 
of  past  misery  heightened  the  sense  of  present  happiness. 
No  more  racks  and  dungeons  now ;  no  more  blood  of  martvrs 
slain  for  the  faith  of  Jesus.  The  civil  arm,  which  before 
oppressed,  was  now  extending  its  friendly  protection.  The 
empire  had  become  Christian,  and  the  emperor  was  bestow- 
ing on  his  Christian  subjects  his  most  gracious  smiles.  He 
was  feasting  and  complimenting  them,  and  calling  them  his 
"  dearest  friends."  The  contrast  was  great.  They  now  saw 
everything  clothed  in   hues  of  light ;    and  the  feelings  must 

and  are  sound.  By  what  means  did  you  escape  from  prison,  unless  you  prom- 
ised our  persecutors  that  you  would  do  tlie  nefarious  thing,  or  did  it?" 
(Epiph.  Hcer.,  Ixviii.  c.  7.)  Now,  it  is  to  be  observed,  not  one  word  of  proof 
is  here  ofFered.  All  is  vague  conjecture.  Eusebius  had  found  means  of  leav- 
ing prison  ;  how,  Potaraon  does  not  know.  The  circumstance,  he  says,  looks 
suspicious. 

No  more  does  Athanasius,  the  determined  foe  of  Eusebius,  venture  to  affirm 
that  there  existed  any  evidence  that  the  reproach  was  deserved.  He  simply 
quotes  a  letter  of  some  Egyptian  bishops,  in  which  it  is  intimated  that  he  was 
accused  of  having  sacrificed.  {Apol.  cont.  Ai-imios.)  But  could  not  Athanasius  — 
who,  during  the  time  he  was  seated  on  the  episcopal  throne  of  Alexandria, 
might  be  regarded  as  the  most  powerful  man  in  Egypt  —  easily  have  obtained 
proof  of  the  impious  act,  had  it  been  committed  1  The  disposition,  surely, 
was  not  wanting.  "  Was  not  Eusebius,"  it  is  asked  in  the  letter,  "accused  by 
our  confessors  of  offering  sacrifice  to  idols  ?  "  And  what  then "?  Were  not 
you,  Athanasius,  accused  of  foul  crimes,  and,  among  others,  treason,  sacri- 
lege, and  murder  ?  And  were  you  not  banished  by  your  sovereign  as  a  "  pes- 
tilent fellow,"  the  foe  of  all  peace  and  order  1 

Origen,  before  Eusebius,  was  accused  of  having  thrown  incense  to  idols. 
The  charge  was  easily  made  or  insinuated,  and  appears  to  have  been  resorted 
to  by  the  malignity  of  enemies  to  depress  an  adversary  or  rival. 

Multitudes  of  Christians,  and  some  who  had  been  thrown  into  prison  during 
tlie  severe  persecutions,  escaped  without  any  improper  compliance.  Why 
might  not  Eusebius  have  been  of  the  number  1  It  is  certain  that  his  fame 
stood  higli  immediately  after  the  persecution  under  Diocletian  ceased ;  for  he 
was  very  soon  advanced  to  the  bishopric  of  Ctesarea.  He  was  afterwards  in- 
vited to  the  see  of  Antioch;  and,  finally,  enjoyed  the  confidence  of  Christians 
generally  to  the  end  of  life  ;  which  could  hardly  have  been  the  case  had  there 
been  any  good  ground  for  the  charge  alluded  to.  We  feel-  little  hesitation, 
therefore,  in  pronouncing  the  insinuation  of  Athanasius  and  his  friend  Pota- 
mon  a  calumny.  Gibbon  (chapter  xvi  )  makes  a  disingenuous  use  of  this 
charge  against  Eusebius. 


294  EUSEBIUS    THE    HISTORIAN. 

find  expression,  and  the  imagination  would  revel  amid  images 
of  glory  and  felicity.  All  this  was  natural,  and  could  hardly 
have  been  otherwise. 

The  churches  which  had  been  thrown  down  by  the  rage 
of  persecuting  tyrants  were  rebuilt  with  more  than  former 
splendor.  Festivals  and  dedications  frequently  occurred,  and 
all  was  full  of  joy  and  promise.  Among  other  churches 
erected  at  this  period  was  tlie  magnificent  one  at  Tyre,  wliich 
rose  on  the  site  of  the  old.  Eusebius,  who  pronounced  the 
oration  or  address  at  its  dedication,  —  still  preserved  in  the 
tenth  book  of  his  History,  —  describes  it  as  a  fabric  of  surpass- 
ing beauty  and  grandeur.  This  might  well  be.  Christians 
now  possessed  wealth  ;  and  in  their  present  circumstances,  all 
their  troubles  at  an  end,  they  would  be  disposed  to  be  liberal 
in  their  appropriations  to  church  architecture,  as  in  other 
things. 

Eusebius  was  at  this  time  Bishop  of  Cassarea  in  Palestine ; 
to  which  see  he  had  been  appointed  in  313  or  314,  and  where 
he  seems  to  have  found  much  leisure  for  study.  He  had  lit- 
erary tastes,  and  was  fond  of  books  ;  which  he  possessed  here 
in  abundance  in  the  collection  made  by  Pamphilus,  to  wdiich 
he  made  large  additions.  He  occasionally,  too,  visited  Jeru- 
salem, where  there  is  said  to  have  been  a  voluminous  library. 
He  was  thus  gathering;  materials  for  the  learned  works  which 
he  subsequently  gave  to  the  world. 

The  Arian  controversy,  of  which  we  have  given  an  account 
in  the  preceding  chapters,  must  for  a  time  have  sadly  broken 
in  upon  his  literary  labors.  We  have  already  spoken  of  his 
connection  with  this  controversy,  and  of  his  presence  at  the 
Council  of  Nice.  We  must  here  explain  his  course  and  his 
views  a  little  more  fully.  From  first  to  last,  he  showed  him- 
self friendly  to  Arius.  When,  on  his  expulsion  from  Alex- 
andria, Arius  retired  into  Palestine,  Eusebius  affoi'ded  him  a 
hospitable  reception,  and  exerted  himself,  along  with  other 
Palestinian  bishops,  in  his  favor. 

He  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  proceedings  of  the  council, 
having  a  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  the  emperor,  whom  he 
addressed  m  a  short  introductory  speech.  We  still  have  his 
pastoral  letter,  written  home    at   the   time,  to  explain   some 


SUBSCRIBES  THE  NICENE  CREED.  295 

things  whicli  might  seem  to  need  elucidation  or  defence.* 
It  is  somewhat  apologetic  in  its  tone,  being  intended  to  pre- 
vent tliat  ill  opinion  his  people  might  very  naturally  conceive 
of  him  on  hearing  of  his  subscription.  In  this  letter  he  in- 
serts at  length  the  form  of  a  creed  which  he  proposed  to  the 
council,  and  which  contained,  as  he  affirms,  the  sentiments 
he  had  always  believed  and  preached,  and  which,  he  adds, 
at  first  met  the  approbation  of  all  present.  Both  the  mem- 
bers of  the  council  and  the  emperor,  he  tells  us,  appeared 
satisfied.  But  it  was  soon  discovered,  it  seems,  that  the 
Arians  could  subscribe  it,  putting  their  own  construction  on 
its  language.  This,  no  doubt,  Eusebius,  who  belonged  to  the 
moderate  party,  and  was  anxious  to  restore  peace,  foresaw  ; 
and  it  was  precisely  what  he  wished.  But  such  a  creed  was 
not  what  the  majority,  who  were  determined  to  cut  off  Arius 
from  the  communion  of  the  Church,  wanted.  They  were  for 
a  time,  it  appears,  at  a  loss  for  some  epithet  to  apply  to  the 
Son,  which  the  Orthodox  could,  and  the  Arians  could  not, 
adopt ;  till  it  was  at  length  discovered,  from  a  letter  of  Euse- 
bius of  Nicomedia,  that  the  latter  objected  to  saying  that  he 
was  consubstantial  with  the  Father  ;  upon  which,  they  eagerly 
pounced  upon  the  term  as  exactly  suited  to  their  purpose.  It 
is  true,  the  term  had  been  condemned  about  fifty  years  before, 
by  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  of  Antioch,  in  the  case  of  Paul 
of  Samosata.  But  that  circumstance  might  not  have  been 
recollected ;  or,  if  recollected,  it  mattered  little,  they  might 
think.  The  word  was  convenient  now,  though  it  might  not 
have  been  so  then. 

Constantine  —  who,  from  the  first,  had  conceived  the  whole 
controversy  to  be  of  a  very  frivolous  nature,  and  who  was  not 
disposed  to  stand  on  niceties  of  expression,  which  he  probably 
very  imperfectly  understood ;  and  who  was,  moreover,  sincerely 
desirous  to  accommodate  matters  —  readily  adopted  the  word,  | 
and  advised  the  rest  to  do  the  same.  Eusebius,  after  a  good 
deal  of  hesitation,  subscribed  the  symbol  in  its  new  dress,  con 
taining  the  obnoxious  word  and  two  or  three  others,  which, 
from  his  tenderness  for  the  Arians,  whom  he  was  reluctant  to 
condemn,  he  had  avoided  introducing  into  his  proposed  creed. 
*  Socrates,  i.  8 ;  Theodoret,  i.  12. 


296  EUSEBIUS    THE    HISTORIAN. 

He  was,  in  consequence,  afterwards  accused,  by  his  enemies, 
of  insincerity  and  bad  faith  ;  for,  thougli  he  seems  to  have 
avoided  tlie  use  of  expressions  pecuharly  Arian,  he  continued 
to  befriend  the  Arians,  and  his  heart  appears  to  have  been 
always  with  them. 

With  regard  to  his  consent  to  the  act  of  subscription,  he,  in 
the  letter  just  referred  to,  put  the  best  face  he  could  on  the 
matter.  He  tells  his  people  that  he  long  resisted,  but  that  his 
scruples  as  to  the  use  of  the  terms  deemed  exceptionable 
("  consubstantial,^^  and  "  begotten,  not  made  ")  were  at  length 
removed  by  the  exposition  given  by  the  council  of  the  sense  in 
which  they  were  to  be  taken  ;  that  is,  as  implying  that  the 
Son  had  no  resemblance  or  community  WMth  the  things  made 
by  him  (as  the  agent  of  the  Father  in  the  creation  of  the 
material  universe) ;  that  he  is  of  like  substance  with  the  Father, 
though  not  a  part  of  his  substance  ;  resembling  him,  but  not 
identical  with  him.  This  explanation,  though  it  would  hardly 
pass  for  orthodox  now,  was  consistent  enough  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Flatonizing  theologVi  from  Athenagoras  down  to  the 
time  of  Eusebius  ;  and  with  it  he  professed  to  be  satisfied, 
and  finally  assented  to  the  whole,  as  he  says,  for  the  sake  of 
peace  ! 

As  to  the  anathemas  at  the  end  of  the  creed,  they  only  con- 
demned, he  said,  the  use  of  certain  Arian  expressions  not  found 
in  the  Scriptures.  But  Eusebius  should  have  recollected, 
while  holdinn;  this  languaore,  that  the  term  which  the  Fathers 
of  the  council  had  adopted  as  a  test  of  orthodoxy,  and  to  the 
use  of  which  he  had  assented,  was  also  an  unscriptural  term  ; 
and  on  this  very  ground  the  Arians  objected  to  it,  and  begged 
that  it  might  not  be  imposed.  They  were  ready,  they  said,  in 
speaking  of  the  Son,  to  employ  all  those  terms  and  ascriptions 
of  dignity  which  were  found  in  the  Bible.  The  subject  of  their 
•pomplaint  was,  that  with  this  their  opponents  were  not  satisfied, 
but  insisted  that  they  should  adopt  expressions  of  which  there 
was  no  example  in  Scripture  or  antiquity. 

Eusebius  has  been  charged  with  insincerity  in  subscribing  a 
creed  which  he  did  not  believe.  We  are  not  disposed  to  admit 
the  charge.  We  are  willing  to  take  his  own  account  of  the 
matter.     He  objected  to  some  terms,  one  in  particular,  intro- 


HIS    SINCERITY.  297 

duced  into  the  creed.  The  Fathers  of  the  council  explain 
the  sense  which  the  terms  in  question  bore,  as  they  understood 
them.  In  this  sense  —  which,  however,  is  not  the  sense  they 
bear  now  —  he  could  accept  them  ;  and  so  subscribes.  In  this 
we  see  no  proof  of  insincerity.  The  only  question  is,  whether 
he  ought  to  have  consented  to  the  imposition  of  any  creed 
whatever. 

We  could  wish,  to  be  sure,  that  he  had  manifested  a  little 
more  firmness.  It  is  difficult,  we  think,  wholly  to  acquit  him 
of  the  charge  of  having  betrayed  the  cause  of  Christian  liberty, 
either  from  personal  timidity,  and  love  of  ease,  or,  as  we  are 
willing  to  admit,  from  the  desire  —  sincere,  no  doubt,  but 
luiavailing  —  to  put  an  end  to  the  unhappy  controversy  which 
i-ent  the  church.  The  cause  of  Arius  was  the  cause  of  religious 
freedom  and  the  right  of  private  judgment ;  and  he  should 
have  been  sustained,  therefore,  — at  least,  so  far  as  not  to  have 
been  subjected  to  suffer  on  account  of  any  supposed  criminality 
attached  to  his  opinions  as  such.  Eusebius  must  not  only  have 
felt  the  wish,  from  his  benevolent  nature  and  motives  of  per- 
sonal friendship,  to  protect  him  ;  but,  from  the  rank  he  held 
among  the  learned  and  wise  of  his  age,  from  his  elevated  views 
and  undoubted  liberality  of  sentiment,  he,  if  any  one,  might 
have  been  expected  to  have  perceived  the  impropriety  of  im- 
posing any  restraint  on  freedom  of  thought,  and,  by  his  conduct, 
to  have  proved  himself  the  enemy  of  uncharitableness  and  ex- 
clusion. By  yielding,  he  lent  the  sanction  of  his  name  and 
influence  to  the  measures  of  the  exclusionists,  generally  •  his 
inferiors  in  all  those  qualities  which  give  a  title  to  resj^ect ;  and 
the  first  general  council,  in  conjunction  with  the  "  most  pious 
Emperor  "  Constantine  (the  first  of  the  C^sars  who  acknowl- 
edged the  faith  of  the  cross),  left  to  the  world  a  pernicious 
example  of  intolerance  and  bigotry,  which  subsequent  times 
have  but  too  faithfully  imitated. 

The  rich  and  splendid  see  of  Antioch  becoming  vacant  on 
the  deposition  of  Eustathius  for  Sabellianism,  in  330,  the 
bishops,  then  assembled  there,  were  desirous  that  Eusebius  — 
the  general  consent  and  suffrage  of  the  people  being  in  his 
favor,  though  a  faction  insisted  on  the  reinstatement  of  Eusta- 
thius —  should  transfer  his  residence  from  Csesarea  to  Antioch, 


298  EUSEBIUS   THE   HISTORIAN. 

and  become  its  bishop  ;  *  and,  to  effect  their  object,  they 
petitioned  Constantine  to  use  his  influence  to  induce  him  to 
comply.  But  he  promptly  refused,  alleging  as  a  reason  an  ex- 
isting canon  of  the  church  prohibiting  a  change  of  sees  ;  and 
the  emperor  commended  his  decision,  with  many  praises  of  his 
modesty  and  worth,  in  letters  still  preserved.  He  was  worthy, 
in  the  complimentary  language  of  Constantine,  to  be  bishop  of 
the  whole  world. 

In  335,  we  find  Eusebius  among  the  bishops  assembled  at 
the  Council  of  Tyre  to  hear  charges  which  had  been  preferred 
against  Athanasius.  Eusebius  was  president  of  the  council. 
From  Tyre,  the  bishops,  by  command  of  the  emperor,  proceeded 
to  .Jerusalem,  to  dedicate  the  magnificent  church  recently 
erected  there  by  his  order.  Eusebius  has  given  a  glowing 
description  of  the  edifice  intended  by  Constantine  to  "  exceed 
all  the  churches  in  the  world  "  in  the  beauty  of  its  structure 
and  the  costliness  of  its  materials.f  The  church,  originally 
called  the  Martyrium^  was  designed  as  a  memorial  of  our  Lord's 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  the  true  cross  having  been 
recently  discovered,  as  it  was  said,  in  the  sepulchre  which  had 
been  laid  open.  It  was  afterwards  known  as  the  Church  of 
the  Holy  Sepulchre.  The  council  assembled  on  the  occasion, 
which  was  in  part  a  continuation  of  that  of  Tyre,  Eusebius 
pronounces  the  "  greatest  he  had  ever  known,"  not  excepting 
that  of  Nice,  of  which  he  also  gives  a  particular  description.  J 
It  was  composed  of  bishops  from  all  the  provinces.  Macedonia 
sent  its  bishop,  and  Pannonia  and  Maesia  the  "  choicest  flower 
of  God's  youth  in  their  country."  The  Bithynians  and 
Thracians  were  there,  and  the  ornament  of  the  Persian 
bishops.  Cappadocia  was  represented  by  men  of  "  learning 
and  eloquence."  All  Syria,  likewise,  and  Mesopotamia, 
Phoenice,  and  Arabia;  Palestine,  also  Egypt  and  Libya,  and 
those  who  "  inhabit  the  country  of  Thebais,"  all  were  there. 
An  innumerable  company  of  people  out  of  all  the  provinces 
followed  the  bishops.     The  dedication  took  place  on  the  Em- 

*  Soc,  i.  24.  The  Consubstantialists  were  at  this  time  accused  of  Sabellian- 
ism  and  Montanism,  and  were  called  blasphemers,  as  subverting  the  existence 
of  the  Son  of  God ;  while  they,  in  turn,  charged  their  opponents  with  poly- 
theism, calling  them  Greeks  (Pagans).  —  Soc,  i.  23  ;  Soz.,  ii.  18. 

t    Vita  Constant.,  iii.  28-40.  J  Ibid.,  iii.  7. 


HIS    ORATION    BEFORE    CONSTANTINE.  299 

peror's  Tricennalia,  and  was  accompanied  with  festivity, 
speeches,  and  orations,  of  Avhich  Eusebius  gives  a  brief  account, 
not  forgetting  himself,  to  whom,  he  says,  were  "  vouchsafed 
blessings  much  above  our  deserts."  * 

Tlie  tricennial  oration  —  which,  it  seems,  was  delivered  by 
him  in  the  imperial  palace  at  Constantinople,  he  having  repaired 
thither  immediately  after  the  dedication  —  is  still  extant,  being 
appended  to  his  "  Life  of  Constantine."  The  emperor,  during 
the  delivery  of  the  oration,  "■  seemed  like  one  transported  with 
joy."  So  says  Eusebius,  who  takes  care  to  inform  us  that  this 
was  the  second  time  he  had  made  a  speech  in  presence  of  the 
emperor  in  his  own  palace.  The  emperor  was  very  courteous, 
and  insisted  on  listening  in  a  standing  posture  :  "  for,  though 
we  entreated  him,"  says  Eusebius,  "  to  rest  himself  upon  his 
imperial  throne,  which  was  hard  by,  he  would  by  no  means  be 
persuaded  to  sit " ;  nor  would  he  allow  the  speech  to  be  dis- 
continued when  it  had  run  out  to  a  great  length,  though  "  we 
were  desirous  to  break  off,"  but  "  entreated  us  to  go  on  till  we 
had  ended  our  discourse."  f 

Eusebius,  it  seems,  was  often  at  court ;  and  whether  there 
voluntarily,  or  in  consequence  of  a  summons  from  the  emperor, 
appears  always  to  have  succeeded  in  retaining  his  good  graces, 
and  returned  to  his  humble  diocese  loaded  with  imperial 
caresses.  The  emperor  often  wrote  to  him,  encouraged  and 
facilitated  his  researches,  and  confided  in  his  fidelity  and 
prudence.  When  he  wanted  fifty  copies  of  the  Scriptures 
transcribed  with  the  utmost  accuracy  for  the  use  of  his- new 
churches  at  Constantinople,  he  applied  to  Eusebius  as  the 
fittest  man  in  the  empire  to  superintend  the  execution.  He 
uniformly  treated  him  with  marked  respect ;  and  his  letters 
to  him,  and  others  in  which  he  is  named,  and  which  Eu- 
sebius —  from  a  vanity  quite  pardonable,  if  from  no  better 
motive  —  has  preserved,  contain  expressions  of  attachment 
evidently  warm  and  sincere. 

*  Vita  Const,  iv.  43-47.  The  Council  of  Nice  (Nicsea,  from  a  word  signifying 
victory),  took  place  on  the  Emperor's  Vicennalia,  which,  according  to  Eusebius, 
had  reference  to  his  triumph  over  his  enemies  ;  but  now  was  erected  a  monu< 
ment  to  peace  and  to  the  Saviour's  triumph  over  death. 

t  Ibid.,  iv.  33,  45.  46. 


300  EUSEBIUS   THE    HISTORIAN. 

The  death  of  Eusebius  is  mentioned  by  Socrates ;  but  he 
does  not  give  the  date.  Constantine  died  A.  D.  337  ;  and 
Eusebius  survived  him  long  enough  to  pay  a  warm  and  grate- 
ful tribute  to  his  memory,  in  what  is  termed  a  "  Life,"  but 
which  is  more  properly  a  panegyric ;  and  died  as  early  as  the 
year  340,  probably  before,  at  the  age  of  about  seventy,  per- 
haps a  little  more. 

Along  with  some  imperfections  which  lie  on  the  surface, 
Eusebius  possessed  many  great  and  good  qualities.  He  was 
free  from  all  asperity  of  temper ;  he  had  warmth  of  feeling, 
and  was  constant  in  his  friendships.  His  amiable  disposition, 
his  love  of  peace  and  quiet,  his  general  moderation  and  candor 
to  those  whose  views  placed  them  in  opposition  to  him,  have 
been  universally  admitted.  He  never,  as  Du  Pin  has  re- 
marked, labored  to  destroy  Athanasius,  or  ruin  his  partisans, 
thouoh  he  could  not  number  him  with  his  friends.  He  never 
abused  his  credit  with  the  emperor  to  elevate  himself  or  pull 
others  down ;  but  employed  himself  for  the  good  and  advan- 
tage of  the  Church,  endeavoring  to  promote  a  spirit  of  accom- 
modation, and  reunite  parties.  He  was  never,  we  believe, 
accused  of  a  grasping,  avaricious  disposition ;  but  appears  to 
have  been  content  with  a  inoderate  fortune,  and  the  enjoyment 
of  the  calm  pleasures  of  a  studious  life. 

It  has  been  made  a  question,  what  Eusebius  really  believed; 
and  the  most  diverse  judgments  have  been  pronounced  on  the 
subject  in  both  ancient  and  modern  times.  Athanasius,  among 
the  ancients,  pronounces  him  an  Arian  ;  Jerome,  "  the  prince 
of  Arians  ";  and  Nicephorus,  "  an  Arian,  and  woi'se  than  an 
Arian."  Others  expressed  themselves  in  similar,  though  not 
all  in  equally  strong,  terms.  Among  the  moderns.  Cave 
makes  an  attempt  to  defend  his  orthodoxy  against  Le  Clerc, 
who  expresses  his  surprise  that  there  should  be  people  whc 
\  enture  to  deny  that  Eusebius  was  an  Arian,  if  they  have 
read  his  M'ritings.  Montfaucon  says,  that  he  "  makes  the 
Son  far  less  than  the  Father,  and  of  a  different  substance."  * 
Petavius  has  a  formal  argument  to  prove  that  he  was  not 
sound  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  that  he  was  a  "  Semi- 
Arian,"  at  least,  not  only  before  but  after  the  •council  of  Nice. 
*  Prcelim.  in  Euseb.  Comment,  in  Psal.  (Eusebii  Opera,t.  v.  ed.  Migne.) 


HIS    THEOLOGICAL    OPINIONS.  301 

"  Nothing  can  be  clearer,"  says  he  ;  and  in  proof  of  tlie  asser- 
tion he  devotes  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  chapters  of  his  first 
book  on  the  Trinity.  Du  Pin,  though  he  pronounces  it  great 
injustice  to  stigmatize  him  as  an  Arian,  yet  thinks  it  impossi- 
ble to  defend  his  orthodoxy ;  and  confesses  that  it  has  been 
vainly  attempted  by  Socrates,  Sozomen,  and  "  some  modern 
writers."  * 

That  he  was  not,  strictly  speaking,  an  Arian,  we  think  per- 
fectly clear.  He  nowhere  avows  his  Arianism ;  nowhere  de- 
clares that  he  embraced  Arius's  peculiar  views  of  the  nature 
of  the  Son.  Arius's  distinguishing  dogma  was,  that  the  Son 
was  created  out  of  nothing ;  that  there  was  a  time  when  he 
did  not  exist ;  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  which  asserted  that 
from  all  eternity  he  had  a  sort  of  metaphysical  existence  in 
the  Father  (^that  is,  existed  as  his  Logos,  Reason,  or  Wisdom), 
but  was  either  a  little  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  or, 
without  reference  to  time,  thrown  out,  or  prolated,  as  it  was 
expressed,  and  so  became,  by  a  voluntary  act  of  the  Father, 
a  real  being.  This  metaphysical  nicety,  Arius  discarded ; 
maintaining,  that  though  the  Son  was,  next  to  God,  the  great- 
est and  best  of  beings,  ranking  both  in  time  and  dignity  as  the 

*  Those  who  wish  to  see  authorities  on  the  subject  may  consult  Le  Clerc's 
BiUioih.  Anc.  et  Mod.,  t.  i.  p.  170,  xvi.  80,  et  seqq.,  xxviii.  240,  et  seqq. ;  also 
Bihlioth.  Univ.  et  Hist.,  t.  x.  p.  479,  et  seqq. ;  and  Le  Clerc's  Second  Epistle, 
Ars  Crit.,  vol.  iii.  ;  Jortin's  Remarks,  vol.  ii.  pp.  229-242;  Cave's  Lives;  Du 
Pin,  Noiivelle  Biblioth.,  art.  "Eusebius";  Petavius's  Theol.  Dogm.,  vol.  ii.  lib.  i. 
cc.  11,  12 ;  and  Tillemont,  Mem.  Eccle's.,  vii.  31-33.  See  also  "  Veterum  Test, 
pro  Euseb.,  et  contra  Euseb.,"  which  follow  Valesius's  Account  of  his  Life  and 
Writings,  ed.  Reading ;  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke's  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
and  the  Notes  to  Jackson's  Novatian,  where  will  be  found  a  numerous  collec- 
tion of  passages  from  Eusebius  relating  to  his  views  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit. 
Neander  mentions  him  as  one  of  the  "men  of  note  "  who  "  appeared  as  media- 
tors" in  tlie  Arian  controversy.  He  was  "an  adherent  of  Origen,"  and  en- 
deavored to  convince  both  parties  "  that  they  held  the  views  of  their  oppo- 
nents to  be  worse  than  they  really  were."  "Almost  the  only  decided  opponents 
of  Origen  during  this  period,"  says  Neander,  "  were  those  who  were  the  ene- 
mies of  free  scientific  development  or  of  spiritual  views."  Eusebius's  system, 
he  says,  "  coincides  entirely  with  that  of  Origen."  "He  was  of  the  opinion 
riiat  the  Son  of  God  could  not  be  called  absolutely  eternal,  like  the  Father ; 
ihat  it  was  necessary  to  ascribe  to  him  an  origin  of  existence  from  the  Father. 
.  .  The  existence  of  the  Father  precedes  the  existence  and  origin  of  the 
Son."  Like  Origen,  however,  he  "  would  remove  all  relations  of  time."  — 
Hist.  Dogm.,  pp.  262,  288  ;  Hist.  Relig.,  vol.  ii.  pp.  367,  368. 


302  EUSEBIUS    THE    HISTORIAN. 

first  and  chief  of  his  creation,  and  was  immutable,  yet  he  did 
not  always  exist,  but  had  a  beginning.  Eusebius  nowhere 
expresses  a  belief  that  the  Son  was  created  out  of  nothing. 
He  held,  as  we  gather  from  his  writings,  the  old  doctrine  of 
the  Platonizing  Fathers.  He  certainly  held  the  old  doctrine 
of  tlie  inferiority  of  the  Son,  and  maintained  that  he  derived 
his  origin  from  the  Father ;  but  he  did  not  think  it  important 
to  define  his  nature.  There  were  some  points  which  he  seems 
to  have  thought  it  unnecessary  to  discuss,  as  he  did  not  deem 
the  knowledge  of  them  essential  to  salvation.  That  of  the 
nature  of  the  Son  was  one  of  them ;  for  the  promise  of  eternal 
life,  he  observes,  is  made  to  the  believer  in  him,  not  to  him 
who  knoivs  his  nature. 

It  is  certain  that  Eusebius  was  not  a  Consubstantialist  in  the 
sense  in  which  Athanasius  understood  the  term  in  his  later 
years.  The  word,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not  of  his  choice,  nor 
to  his  taste ;  for  it  might  imply  what  he  did  not  believe  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  the  Son.  As  the  Platonists  had  used 
it,  however,  and  as  it  might  be  understood  to  mean,  not  a 
numerical,  but  only  a  specific  sameness,  that  is,  resemblance  (in 
which  sense,  the  Fathers  of  the  council,  who  seem  to  have 
been  not  a  little  perplexed  in  their  attempts  to  define  it, 
allowed  him  to  take  it),  he  consented,  as  before  said,  to  adopt 
it.  But,  in  this  sense,  it  by  no  means  excluded  inequality  and 
subordination  between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  In  these  he 
firmly  believed ;  and  if  such  belief  constituted  Arianism,  all 
antiquity,  as  it  has  been  truly  said,  was  Arian.  But  it  does 
not :  for  it  leaves  undetermined  the  origin  of  the  Son,  who,  as 
Arius  contended,  was  called  into  being  from  nothing;  while 
his  opponents,  the  Consubstantialists,  insisted  on  saying  that 
he  was  ineffably  begotten.  Thus  a  person  might  believe  that 
the  Son  was,  from  the  time  when  he  was  begotten  before  the 
ages,  a  distinct  being  from  the  Father,  and  inferior  to  him, 
without  adopting  the  distinguishing  dogma  of  the  Arians. 
This,  no  doubt,  was  the  case  with  Eusebius.  At  all  events, 
he  was  willing,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  to  conform  to  the  popu- 
.ar  phraseology,  and  say,  with  the  Homoousians,  that  he  was 
ineffably  begotten.  This,  we  suppose,  was  the  amount  of  his 
orthodoxy.     He  certainly  never  dreamed,  any  more  than  Ori- 


INFERIORITY    OF    THE    SON.  303 

gen  (of  whom  he  is  known  to  liave  been  a  great  admirer),  of 
admitting  the  equality  of  the  Father  and  Son  in  any  legitimate 
sense  of  the  term  ;  and  he  seems  to  have  placed  the  Spirit 
among  tlie  things  made  by  the  Son.  Du  Pin  quotes  a  passage 
to  this  eifect  from  his  writings. 

It  may  be  proper  to  fortify  our  statements  by  a  few  extracts 
from  Eusebius  himself.  Without  hesitation  he  pronounces  the 
Father  and  the  Son  two  distinct  subsistences  ;  but  says,  "  we 
do  not  suppose  them  to  be  two  entitled  to  equal  honor,  nor 
both  to  be  without  a  beginnino-  and  unbeo-otten  :  but  one  un- 
begotten  and  without  beginning,  the  other  begotten,  having 
his  origin  from  the  Father."*  "The  head  of  Christ,"  accord- 
ing to  the  Apostle,  he  says,  "  is  God."f  The  following  is 
decisive  enough,  one  would  think.  "  The  Father  is  of  him- 
self perfect  and  first,  as  F'ather,  and  the  cause  of  the  Son's 
subsistence  ;  not  receiving  anything  from  the  Son  to  the  com- 
pleting of  his  Divinity.  But  the  Son  as  being  derived  from  a 
cause  is  second  to  him  whose  Son  he  is,  having  received  from 
this  Father  both  his  being,  and  his  being  such  as  he  is."J 

Again,  the  ante-Nicene  doctrine,  as  we  understand  it,  is, 
that  there  is  one  God  supreme  over  all,  infinite,  unbegotten, 
who  alone  possesses  underived  power  and  authority,  and  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  not  that  one  God.  Hear  what  Eusebius  says 
on  this  point.  Although  we  confess  Christ  to  be  God,  yet 
there  is,  says  he,  "  One  only  God  [that  is,  in  an  absolute 
sense] ,  he  who  is  alone  without  beginning,  and  unbegotten  ; 
who  has  his  Divinity  of  himself  [is  self-existent],  and  is  the 
cause  to  the  Son  of  his  being,  and  of  his  being  what  he  is  ;  by 
whom  the  Son  himself  confesses  that  he  lives,  saying  without 
reserve,  '  as  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the 
Father ';  and,  '  for  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath 
he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself.'  "  It  is  a  gift, 
not  something  which  he  originally  possessed  in  and  of  himself. 
He  is  not,  like  God,  self-existent.  A  little  after,  "  Is  not  he 
alone  the  one  God,"  asks  Eusebius,  "who  acknowledges  no 
superior  and  no  cause  of  his  being,  but  possesses  the  divinity 
of  his  monarchical  power  as  something  peculiarly  his  own, 
original  and  unbegotten,  and  imparts  to  the  Son  of  his  own 

*  Eccles.  TheoL,  ii.  7  t  Ibid  t  Demonst.  Evang.,  iy.  8. 


304  EUSEBIUS   THE   HISTORIAN. 

divinity  and  life  .  .  .  whom  alone  he  [the  Son]  teaches  us  to 
regard  as  the  only  trne  God,  and  confesses  to  be  greater  than 
himself  .  .  .  whom  also  he  would  have  us  all  know  to  be  his 
God."* 

Eusebius  speaks  of  the  Son,  or  Logos,  as  being  always  with 
the  Father,  and  he  once  applies  the  term  "  eternal "  to  his 
generation,  which  he  elsewhere  contradicts,  when  he  says  that 
the  Father  existed  before  the  Son.  He  also,  as  we  have  seen, 
calls  him  God ;  uniformly,  however,  denying  to  him  self-exist- 
ence. He  is  begotten  and  derived.  God,  we  are  expressly 
told,  was  the  "  cause  of  his  existence  and  of  his  being  such  as 
he  was  ";  his  divinity  and  power  were  derived  from  the  Fa- 
ther. Thus  he  was  subordinate.  Further,  Eusebius  says, 
that  the  Son  was  not  generated  by  the  necessity  of  the  divine 
nature,  but  was  begotten  by  a  voluntary  act  of  the  Father. 
Light,  he  says,  shines  forth  from  a  luminous  body,  not  from 
choice,  but  by  a  property  of  its  nature.  But  the  Son  "  by  the 
intention  and  will  of  the  Father  was  made  to  subsist  in  his 
likeness;  for  by  will  God  became  Father  of  the  Son."  f 
Again,  "  before  all  ages,  he  [the  Son]  received  a  real  sub- 
sistence by  the  uuTitterable  and  inconceivable  will  of  the 
Father."  $  And  finally,  "  every  one  must  confess  that  the 
Father  is,  and  subsists  before  the  Son."  § 

Nothing  can  more  clearly  show  that  Eusebius,  in  speaking 
of  the  Father  as  unbegotten  and  the  Son  as  begotten,  as  he 
uniformly  does,  really  meant  what  he  said ;  the  Son  was  not 
bemnnino-less  :  the  Father  was  an  underived,  the  Son  a  de- 
rived  being.  The  Father  preceded  the  Son ;  and  the  Son 
was  minister  to  the  Father.  || 

The  dignity  of  the  Son,  according  to  Eusebius,  was  derived. 
"  The  Father,"  he  says,  "  gives,  the  Son  receives."  He 
speaks  of  the  Son  as  a  "  second  substance."  John  calls  the 
Word  God,  but  "  we  must  of  necessity  confess,"  says  Euse- 

*  Ecdes.  T/ieoL,  i.  11.  t  Demonst.  Evang.,  iv.  3.  %  Ibid. 

§  Demonst.  Evang.,  v.  1. 

II  Eusebius  observes  that  when  the  Evangelist  affirms  that  "all  things  were 
Tiade  by  him,"  that  is,  by  the  Son,  he  uses  the  preposition  {(hu)  which  denotes 
the  instrument,  and  not  that  (vtzS)  which  denotes  the  efficient  cause.  Ecdes. 
TheoL,  i.  20.  [See  also  Eccles.  TlieoL,  ii.  14,  where  he  remarks  that  "  the 
preposition  6lu  signifies  ministerial  agency,"  Tb  vtztjpetlkov.  — Ed.] 


INFERIORITY    OF   THE  SON.  306 

bius,  "  that  he  is  not  God  over  all,  neither  the  Father  himself, 
but  his  only-begotten  Son ;  not  equal  with  the  Father  .  .  . 
not  one  and  the  same  with  God."  * 

Eusebius  says  expressly  that  the  "Father  preceded  the 
Son ";  that  he  "  existed  before  the  generation  of  the  Son." 
"  That  he  existed  before  the  generation  of  the  Son,"  he  says 
in  another  place,  "  all  must  confess."! 

We  can  conceive  of  no  way  in  w^hich  these  passages  can  be 
reconciled  with  the  writer's  orthodoxy.  Is  any  one  disposed 
to  say  that  it  is  of  no  consequence  what  Eusebius  believed  ? 
In  one  view,  his  faith  has  some  significance  to  us,  certainly  so 
far  as  our  present  argument  is  concerned.  Eusebius  professed 
to  hold  the  old  faith  of  Christians  ;  and  no  one  knew  better 
than  he  what  that  faith  was.  He  was  a  diligent  inquirer,  an 
antiquary,  a  collector  of  Christian  documents  of  the  then  olden 
time.  He  had  before  him  a  multitude  of  writings,  which  have 
since  perished,  which  had  come  down  from  primitive  times. 
Who  better  than  he  knew  what  the  old  faith  of  Christians 
was  ?  Yet  he  was  no  Trinitarian.  It  is  a  vain  task  to  at- 
tempt to  vindicate  his  orthodoxy,  in  the  modern  sense  of  the 
term.  His  creed  would  not  stand  the  test  before  any  Trinita- 
rian council  at  the  present  day ;  nor,  were  he  living  now, 
holding  the  opinions  he  did,  would  he  find  it  easy  to  be  admit- 
ted into  one  of  our  Orthodox  churches.  He  would  be  com- 
pelled to  stand  aside.  His  explanations  of  parts  of  the  Nicene 
Creed,  and  especially  of  the  word  "  consubstantial,"  would  be 
fatal  to  him  now.  All  the  circumstances  of  the  case  taken 
into  view,  especially  his  opportunity  (greater  than  is  enjoyed 
by  any  of  us)  of  knowing  what  the  faith  of  the  Christians  of 
the  first  three  centuries  —  time-honored  men  —  was,  his  creed 
has,  we  think,  great  significance.  That  he  was  no  Trinitarian 
is  a  fact  which  tells,  and  must  tell.  "An  Arian,  and  worse 
than  an  Arian,"  is  not  literally  true  of  him  ;  yet  he  was  not 
a  Trinitarian.  No  one,  we  suppose,  at  this  time  of  day,  will 
undertake  to  vindicate  his  claim  to  be  so  called,  according  to 
the  present  usage  of  speech. 

*  Demonst.  Evang.,  v.  4 ;  Prcep.  Evang.,  vii.  15 ;  Eccles.  Theol.,  ii.  14. 
t  Demonst.  Evang.,  iv.  3 ;  v.  1. 

20 


306  EUSEBIUS   THE   HISTORIAN. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Credit  to  which  Edsebius  is  entitled  as  an  Historian.  —  Charges 

AGAINST     him.  VaLUE     OF     HIS     MATERIALS.  HiS     AUTHORITIES.  — 

Tradition.  —  Lost    Writings.  —  Writings    still    Extant.  —  Con- 
temporaneous History. — Literary  Merit  of  Eusebius's  Work. 

We  shall  not  attempt  here  to  give  a  catalogue  of  Eusebius's 
numerous  writings.  Some  of  them  are  lost ;  but  enough  re- 
main to  bear  testimony  to  his, industry  and  multifarious  read- 
ing. The  most  important  of  them  is  his  "  History,"  in  ten 
books,  in  which  he  has  transmitted  a  multitude  of  facts  and 
traditions  relating  to  the  early  days  of  Christianity,  and  the 
character  and  writings  of  Christians  ;  of  which,  but  for  him, 
no  memorial  would  have  been  now  left. 

The  degree  of  credit  to  which  he  is  entitled  as  an  historian 
is  a  question  embarrassed  by  some  difficulties,  but  one  on 
which  we  must  say  a  few  words  before  we  close.*  First,  he 
is  charged  with  a  deliberate  suppression  of  the  truth  ;  thus 
knowingly,  it  is  said,  violating  "  one  of  the  fundamental  laws 
of  history."  This  charge  is  founded  on  what  he  himself  states 
respecting  his  purpose  in  Avriting,  and  the  method  he  chose  to 
pursue.f  He  has  nearly  reached  the  close  of  his  history,  and 
is  relating  what  had  fallen  under  his  own  eye  ;  and  he  ob- 
serves, that  he  shall  put  on  record,  in  this  his  "  universal  his- 
tory," only  such  things  as  might  be  "  profitable  "  to  Christians 
of  his  day  and  to  those  who  should  come  after.  He  shall  not 
describe,  he  says,  the  dissensions  and  unworthy  conduct  of 
Christians,  tending  to  the  disgrace  of  religion  ;  he  shall  not 
mention  all  the  faults  and  infirmities  of  the  disciples  of  the 
cross,  which  he  beheld  with  so  much  pain  :  he  shall  relate 
only  matters  of  importance.  "  Whatsoever  things  are  grave 
and  of  good  report,"  says  he,  "  according  to  the  holy  word,  if 

*  For  a  more  full  discussion  of  the  subject,  we  must  refer  our  readers  to  an 
article  in  the  Christian  Examiner  for  July,  1835,  pp.  291-312. 
t  Ilist.,  viii.  2;  Martyrs  of  Palestine.,  c.  12. 


CHARGES    AGAINST    EUSEBIUS.  307 

ther^  be  any  virtue  and  praise,  these  things  I  deem  it  most 
suitable  to  the  renowned  martyrs  to  recount  and  write,  and 
commit  to  faithful  ears  ; "  omitting  the  rest,  as  foreign  from 
his  purpose,  abhorrent  to  his  feelings,  and  subserving  no  end 
of  piety  or  virtue.  This  is  the  sum  of  what  he  says.  Whether 
it  justifies  the  very  broad  insinuation  of  the  historian  of  the 
"  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire  "  *  against  the  trust- 
worthiness of  Eusebius,  the  reader  may  be  allowed  to  judge 
for  himself.  Eusebius  might  think  very  naturally  that  the 
hand  of  friendship  might  be  permitted  to  throw  a  veil  over  the 
imperfections  of  his  fellow-believers  ;  he  might  not  conceive 
that  the  interests  of  virtue  or  humanity  required  or  authorized 
him,  in  all  cases,  to  "  draw  their  fi'ailties  from  their  dread 
abode."  In  this  course  we  can  see  ingenuous  feeling  and  ele- 
vated principle.  If,  in  pursuing  it,  Eusebius  has  offended,  we 
think  the  offence  one  Avhich  can  be  readily  forgiven. 

The   second  charo;e   against  Eusebius  is  of  a  more   grave 

Oct  O 

character :  it  is,  that  he  approved  the  use  of  what  are  called 
"  pious  frauds  "  ;  or,  as  it  has  been  expressed,  that  he  was  a 
"  liar  from  principle."  This  charge  rests  on  the  title  to  the 
thirty-first  chapter  of  the  twelfth  book  of  his  "  Evangelical 
Preparation."  And,  to  be  sure,  the  title,  at  first  view,  looks 
a  little  ominous ;  for  it  seems  to  tell  us,  that  falsehood  is  to  be 
sometimes  employed,  by  way  of  medicine,  for  those  who  need 
it.  But,  if  we  read  the  chapter  referred  to,  —  a  short  one,  — 
we  find  that  it  so  explains  or  limits  the  principle  laid  down  in 
the  title,  as  to  render  it  wholly,  or  in  great  part,  innocuous ; 
for  it  only  recognizes  the  Platonic  precept,  that  men  are  some- 
times to  be  lured  into  the  way  of  truth  and  virtue  by  the  em- 
bellishments of  imagination  and  fancy.  Hence  we  employ 
fable  and  poetry  and  parable  and  song,  and  numerous  rhetor- 
ical ornaments  ;  and  some  of  these,  as  it  is  rightly  observed, 
occur  in  the  Sacred  Writings.  They  contain  appeals  to  the 
imagination,  and  do  not  disdain  the  use  of  poetical  imagery, 
and  figures  of  speech.  Speaking  in  accordance  with  human 
apprehensions,  they  introduce  God  as  angry,  jealous,  grieved, 
and  repenting,  and  subject  to  various  perturbations,  which  can, 
in  reality,  have  place  only  in  frail  and  finite  beings.  These 
*  Gibbon,  ch.  xvi.  vol.  ii.  p.  479,  ed.  Lond.  1821. 


308  EUSEBIUS    THE    HISTORIAN. 

are  some  of  the  illustrations  which  Eusebius  employs  ;  and 
they  show  in  what  sense  he  understood  the  principle,  and  the 
extent  to  which  he  would  push  it.  He  is  not  speaking  of  his- 
torical composition,  but  of  the  modes  of  influencing  the  minds 
of  men  by  rhetoric,  ornament,  allegory,  and  poetic  fiction. 
But  is  he  who  approves  these  and  similar  methods  of  insinuat- 
ing useful  instruction  to  be  branded  as  "  a  liar  from  principle," 
and  a  "  defender  of  frauds  "  ?  On  so  slight  a  foundation  do 
the  disingenuous  insinuations  and  sarcasms  of  Gibbon  rest.* 

In  an  examination  of  Eusebius's  real  merits  and  defects,  or 
the  credit  to  which  he  is  entitled  as  an  historian,  our  inquiries 
must  naturally  be  directed  to  two  points  :  first,  the  value  of 
his  materials  ;  in  other  words,  the  sources  whence  he  drew  ; 
and,  secondly,  his  discretion,  skill,  and  fidelity  in  the  use  of 
them.     On  both  of  these  points  we  shall  slightly  touch. 

It  is  obvious  that  Eusebius  made  no  little  use  of  unwritten 
tradition.  In  numerous  instances,  he  prefaces  his  relation  with 
some  such  expressions  as  these  :  "As  it  is  said  "  or  "reported  " ; 
"  as  we  have  received  from  tradition  ";  "  according  to  ancient 
tradition  ";  "  as  we  have  understood."  We  are  not  to  infer, 
however,  that  by  these  and  similar  expressions,  which  abound 
in  his  history,  he  always  means  oral  tradition.  The  contrary 
is  evident.  He  sometimes  speaks  of  tradition,  as  delivered  in 
written  documents  or  commentaries,  which  he  proceeds  in 
some  instances  to  quote. 

It  is  quite  clear,  however,  that  he  often  appeals  to  common 
and  unwritten  report,  or  to  tradition  for  some  time  handed 
down  orally,  though  afterwards  recorded.  Now,  two  ques- 
tions here  present  themselves,  neither  of  which  it  is,  at  the 
present  day,  very  easy  to  settle.  First,  to  what  respect  is  such 
tradition,  in  reality,  entitled  ?  and,  secondly,  what  reliance  did 
Eusebius  himself  place  upon  it?  In  regard  to  the  first,  it 
would  be  rash  to  affirm  that  common  or  traditionary  report  is, 

*  If  Eusebius  is  to  be  condemned,  wliat  sliall  we  say  of  the  following  charge 
brought  by  Le  Clerc  against  tlie  pious  Cave  ?  After  observing  that  Cave 
•would  make  the  Bishop  of  Ca;sarea  orthodox  by  force,  Le  Clerc  adds,  "  Mais 
Mr.  <^ave  etoit  un  homme  accoutume  non  seulement  a  dissimuler,  mais  a  dirs 
If  contraire  de  ce  qu'il  pensoit,  par  une  mauvaise  politique ;  ce  que  a  fait  pas- 
ser ses  Histoires  Ecclesiastiques  pour  des  legendes  mitigees."  —  Biblioth.  Anc 
et  Mod.,  t.  iv.  p.  19. 


HIS    AUTHORITIES.  309 

in  all  cases,  to  be  rejected,  as  wholly  unworthy  of  attention. 
It  probably  has,  in  most  instances,  some  foundation,  however 
slight,  in  fact.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  to  be  received  with 
great  caution.  We  are  required  to  sift  it  diligently ;  and  we 
are  allowed  no  inconsiderable  freedom  in  lopping  away  such 
parts  as  bear  apparent  marks  of  exaggeration  or  addition,  or 
which  want  the  support  of  probability. 

That  Eusebius  himself  did  not  consider  what  he  relates  as 
matter  of  common  report,  to  be  entitled  to  implicit  credit, 
seems  to  us  very  plain.  He  gives  the  tradition,  and,  as  it 
would  appear,  leaves  his  readers  to  take  it  for  what  it  is,  in 
their  opinion,  worth.  In  sitting  down  to  his  work,  he  seems 
to  have  proceeded  upon  the  principle  recognized  by  Herodo- 
tus, the  father  of  history.  "  I  must  relate  things,"  says  he, 
"  as  they  are  reported  ;  but  I  am  not  obliged  to  believe  all."  * 
This  circumstance  we  must  keep  in  view,  in  order  rightly  to 
estimate  Eusebius's  merits  as  an  historian.  It  has  not  been 
sufficiently  attended  to,  and  his  reputation  has  suffered  in  con- 
sequence. Thus,  because  his  relations  have  sometimes  the  air 
of  fable,  it  is  hastily  concluded  that  he  is  a  writer  entitled  to 
no  respect.  The  inference  is  unsound,  and  does  him  great 
injustice.  He  has  recorded  traditions  bearing  various  marks 
of  probability  or  improbability ;  but  he  avowedly  gives  them 
as  traditions,  and  we  must  receive  them  for  what  they  are 
worth.  Some  of  them  he  evidently  regarded  as  suspicious. 
He  has  been  perfectly  honest.  When  he  had  authorities 
which  he  thought  could  be  relied  on,  he  has  given  theni : 
when  they  were  wanting,  he  has  given  us  fair  notice,  that 
his  statements  are  founded  only  on  common  or  ancient 
rumor. 

The  lost  writings  appealed  to  by  him,  or  writings  in  their 
present  form  manifestly  corrupt  or  of  doubtful  genuineness,  or 
of  which  only  fragments  have  come  down  to  us,  are  numerous. 
As  fountains  of  history,  they  must  have  possessed  various 
merit.  Some  of  them  appear  to  have  been  entitled  to  very 
little  respect,  and  others  to  none  at  all.  To  the  latter  class  we 
must  refer  his  authorities  for  the  reported  correspondence 
between  Abgarus  and  Jesus  Christ,  recorded  in  the  first  book 
*  Herodotus,  lib.  vii.  c.  152. 


310  EUSEBIUS    THE    HISTORIAN. 

of  his  "  History."  *  The  letters  are  undoubtedly  a  forgery, 
though  we  readily  acquit  Eusebius  of  all  participation  in  the 
fraud.  The  originals  existed,  as  he  tells  us,  in  the  Syriac 
language,  in  the  archives  of  the  city  of  Edessa,  whence  they 
were  taken  by  or  for  him  (for  his  language  is  ambiguous),  and 
translated  into  Greek.  This  is  all  he  says  of  their  history  ; 
and  we  see  no  reason  whatever  to  call  in  question  his  good 
faith.  But  he  suffered  himself  to  be  egregiously  duped.  A 
document  undoubtedly  came  to  his  hands,  purporting  to  have 
been  drawn  from  the  archives  referred  to,  which  he  hastily 
received  as  ancient  and  authentic. 

The  forgery  would  give  us  little  concern,  were  it  not  that 
so  gross  a  blunder  of  Eusebius,  at  the  very  threshold,  affects 
his  character  as  an  historian.  If  he  had  so  little  critical 
sagacity  as  to  be  imposed  upon  by  so  palpable  and  clumsy  a 
fraud,  it  may  be  asked,  What  reliance  can  be  placed  on  his 
judgment  in  any  case  ?  Does  not  the  fact  go  to  show  a  degree 
of  carelessness,  and  want  of  discrimination,  in  the  selection  of 
his  materials,  which  must  essentially  impair  our  confidence  in 
the  credibility  of  his  narrative  in  other  instances  ?  Undoubtedly 
it  tends  to  inspire  distrust  of  his  judgment,  and  places  us  under 
the  necessity  of  subjecting  his  authorities  to  the  test  of  rigid 
examination,  when  in  our  power.  But  this  we  are  compelled 
to  do  in  case  of  most  ancient,  and  but  too  many  modei'n,  his- 
torians.    In  this  respect,  Eusebius  does  not  stand  alone. 

Whether  the  account  of  the  sufferings  of  our  Saviour,  re- 
ported to  have  been  sent  by  Pilate  to  the  Emperor  Tiberius, 
and  referred  to  by  Justin  Martyr  and  by  Tertullian,  is  to  be 
classed  with  the  above  mentioned  in  the  rank  of  forgeries  or 
not,  or  had  only  an  imaginary  existence,  it  is  not  material  to 
our  purpose  to  inquire  ;  as  Eusebius,  who  seems  never  to  have 
seen  it,  does  little  more  than  allude  to  it,  and  can  hardly  be 
said  to  have  used  it  as  an  authority  at  all. 

Among  the  authorities  entitled  to  some,  though  to  very  little 
respect,  we  may  place  Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis.  Papias 
was  a  great  collector  of  traditions,  and,  whenever  he  met  with 
a  person  who  had  seen  and  conversed  with  the  Apostles  and 
elders,  was  particular  in  his  inquiries  as  to  what  they  said  . 

*  Cap.  13. 


LOST    DOCUMENTS.  311 

"  what  Andrew  and  what  Peter  said "  ;  what  "  Phihp  or 
Thomas  or  James  or  John  or  Matthew  and  the  other  Apostles 
were  wont  to  say  ";  what  "  John  the  elder  "  said.  He  left  a 
work,  in  five  books,  apparently  a  sort  of  commentary  on  our 
Lord's  discourses  or  life,  extant  in  Eusebius's  time  ;  but  Eu- 
sebius  himself  pronounces  him  to  have  been  a  man  of  very 
small  capacity,  and  says  that  he  propagated  several  fabulous 
legends.  Indeed,  he  seems  to  have  been  a  person  of  un- 
bounded credulity,  —  utterly  destitute  of  discrimination  and 
judgment.  He  first  gave  currency  among  Christians  to  the 
doctrine  of  Chiliasm,  or  the  one  thousand  years'  reign  of  Christ 
on  earth,  with  his  saints,  in  the  enjoyment  of  corporeal  delights  ; 
which  Irenfeus  and  others,  having  regard  to  the  "  antiquity  of 
the  man,"  adopted  and  defended,  but  to  which  the  mighty  arm 
of  Origen  Adamantius  finally  gave  a  death-blow.  Papias,  in 
peering  about  for  traditions  and  old  stories,  of  which  he  seems 
to  have  collected  a  goodly  number,  no  doubt  gleaned  some 
truths  ;  but  he  is  evidently  no  authority  for  anything,  except 
as  a  witness  to  what  he  saw  and  heard,  if  so  much  as  that. 

In  regard  to  lost  works,  or  works  of  which  only  a  few  frag- 
ments have  reached  our  times  (preserved,  perhaps,  by  Euse- 
bius  himself),  we  may  observe,  that,  from  the  time  of  Justin 
Martyr,  or  from  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  these 
works,  used  by  Eusebius  as  authorities,  begin  to  multiply. 
Among  them  we  may  mention  Hegesippus,  a  converted  Jew, 
who  flourished  about  the  year  170,  and  wrote  five  books  of 
"  Ecclesiastical  Memoii's,"  of  which  we  have  now  only  soine 
fragments  found  in  Eusebius,  and  a  very  short  one  quoted  by 
Photius  at  second-hand.  Eusebius  speaks  of  him  with  great 
respect,  though  he  seems  to  have  been  a  rude  and  incoherent 
writer ;  and  the  judgment  of  the  Christian  world  concerning 
him  has  been  generally  unfavorable.* 

*  Kestner,  in  a  dissertation  inserted  in  his  treatise  "  De  Eusebii  Auctoritate 
et  Fide  Diplomatic^,"  Gott.  1816,  has  attempted  a  defence  of  the  historical 
fidelity  of  Hegesippus  —  we  do  not  think,  with  entire  success  —  against  what 
he  calls  the  unjust  and  perverse  judgments  pronounced  concerning  him.  He 
had  been  called  a  dealer  in  fables,  and  a  most  futile  trifler,  rather  than  an 
historian ;  and  Stroth  had  said  that  he  is  so  incoherent,  that  "  you  would 
think  you  were  reading  the  meditations  of  a  shoemaker  in  the  language  of  a 
Scythian."     The  specimens  of  his  performance,  given  by  Eusebius,  certainly 


312  EUSEBIUS   THE    HISTORIAN. 

In  his  sixth  and  seventh  books,  Eusebius  draws  largely  on 
the  epistolary  writings  of  Dionysius,  called  the  Great,  Bishop 
of  Alexandria.  In  his  preface  to  his  seventh  book,  he  ac- 
knowledges his  numerous  obligations  to  him.  He  says  that 
Dionysius  shall  compose  the  book  in  his  own  words,  relating 
the  occurrences  of  his  times  in  the  letters  he  has  left.  Dio- 
nysius was  an  honest  man,  and  reputed  to  be  learned  and  elo- 
quent. He  mingled  much  in  the  affairs  of  Christians  of  his 
time,  A.  D.  247  ;  and  wrote  of  what  he  had  seen  and  heard, 
and  in  which  he  was  a  chief  actor.  His  authority,  allowing 
for  the  ordinary  weaknesses  and  imperfections  of  human  nature, 
is  entitled  to  great  respect. 

These  ai'e  among  the  documents  existing  before  his  day, 
which  are  expressly  named  by  him  as  authorities  which  have 
now  wholly,  or  in  part,  perished,  and  of  many  of  w^hich  we 
have  only  portions  preserved  by  him.  To  these  we  must  add 
the  productions  appealed  to  by  him,  which  have  entirely,  or  in 
a  great  measure,  survived  the  injuries  of  time,  and  of  the 
value  of  which,  therefore,  we  can  judge  for  ourselves  ;  as  the 
works,  still  extant,  of  Josephus,  Philo,  Justin  Martyr,  Clement 
the  Alexandi'ian,  Tatian,  Irenwus,  Tertullian,  and  Origen,  and 
two  or  three  imperial  rescripts  or  letters.  He  derived  assist- 
ance, no  doubt,  from  other  soiirces.  He  speaks  of  the  rich  col- 
lection of  letters  preserved  in  the  library  at  Jerusalem,  which 
furnished  important  materials  for  his  use.*  He  often,  however, 
omits  to  name  his  authorities,  either  from  ignorance  or  care- 
lessness, or  perhaps  because  the  general  consent  of  writers 
seemed  to  render  specification  unnecessary. 

In  the  preface  to  his  eighth  book,  Eusebius  informs  us  that 
he  is  about  to  relate  events  which  happened  in  his  own  times. 
Of  his  ten  books,  then,  he  devotes  three  to  contemporaneous 
history.  He  professes  to  speak  of  what  he  saw  and  knew,  not 
always  naming  documents  or  authorities  ;  yet  often,  especially 
near  the  close,  appealing  to  letters  and  edicts  of  the  emperors, 
several  of  which  he  has  preserved  entire.  It  must  be  admitted, 
that  no  man  of  his  times  had  better  means  than  he  of  becoming 

do  not  tend  to  inspire  any  very  deep  regret  for  its  loss  (Euseb.  Hist.,  ii.  23 
lu.  16,  20,  32;  iv.  8,22). 
*  Hist.,  vi.  20. 


USE    OP    HIS    MATERIALS.  313 

acquainted  with  the  general  affairs  of  Christians ;  though,  in 
estimating  the  merit  of  this  part  of  his  narrative,  we  must  not 
forget  the  difficulty  of  arriving  at  truth  from  the  reports  — 
often  inaccurate,  partial,  and  colored  —  of  contemporaries,  sub- 
ject, as  their  minds  must  be,  to  the  disturbing  influence  of 
human  passions,  partiality,  or  prejudices. 

From  this  slight  survey  of  the  fountains  to  which  Eusebius 
had  access,  it  is  quite  obvious  that  his  materials  were  of  vari- 
ous merit:  some  being  of  the  very  best  kind;  others,  to  say 
the  least,  very  suspicious ;  and  some  utterly  without  value. 
He  had,  at  times,  clear  lights  to  direct  him  on  the  road  ;  at 
others,  he  was  compelled  to  thread  his  way  amid  surrounding 
darkness. 

We  do  not  pretend  to  assert  that  he  was  always  thorough  in 
his  researches,  or  had  recourse,  in  all  instances,  to  the  best 
sources  of  information.  Yet  he  sometimes  discriminates,  and 
manifests  some  solicitude,  certainly,  about  the  worth  of  the 
documents  used  by  him.  He  frequently  notes  the  time  when, 
and  the  authors  by  whom,  they  were  written.  Examples 
might  be  given  in  abundance  ;  but  the  enumeration  would  be 
tedious.*  In  his  fifth  book,  however, f  there  occurs  a  statement 
which,  in  justice  to  him,  we  cannot  pass  over ;  for  it  shows 
that  he  was  not  utterly  careless  and  indifferent  about  his 
authorities.  Thus,  after  mentioning  some  writings  of  which 
the  authors  and  their  times  were  known,  he  proceeds  to  say 
that  many  more  pieces  had  come  to  his  hands,  the  authorship 
and  date  of  which  he  had  no  means  of  ascertaining  ;  and  there- 
fore, he  observes,  he  could  not  make  use  of  them  nor  quote 
them.  He  sometimes,  too,  assigns  reasons,  historical  and 
critical,  for  rejecting  certain  writings  which  fall  under  his 
notice  ;  of  which  we  may  mention,  as  an  example,  the  Gospels 
of  Peter,  Thomas,  and  others ;  also  the  Acts  of  Andrew  and 
John  and  others  of  the  Apostles  ;  and  some  writings  attributed 
to  Clement  of  Rome.^ 

Of  the  use  Eusebius  made  of  his  materials,  we  need  say 

*  He  is  sometimes,  however,  loose  and  inaccurate,  and  occasionally  gives 
contradictory  statements,  of  which  we  have  an  example  in  his  account  of  tlie 
time  of  Hegesippus.     Comp.  Hist.,  iv.  8;  and  Ibid.,  cc.  21,  22. 

t  Cap.  27.  X  Hist.,  ili.  25,  38. 


314  EUSEBIUS   THE    HISTORIAN. 

little.  That  his  dihgence  in  collecting  was  greater  than  his 
care  and  skill  in  using  the  stores  he  had  accumulated,  will  be 
readily  admitted.  He  is  not  a  skilful  narrator.  He  has  not 
fused  down  his  materials  into  a  mass  of  pure  ore.  He  has 
left  much  rubbish,  which  a  more  scrupuloiis  judgment  would 
have  swept  away.  His  work  belongs  to  an  age  not  imbued 
with  the  spirit  of  philosophical  criticism,  and  it  bears  numer- 
ous marks  of  haste  and  inadvertency.  As  a  production  of 
art,  it  is  full  of  blemishes.  Yet  we  should  be  grateful  for  the 
many  pi-ecious  remains  of  antiquity  it  has  saved  from  destruc- 
tion, and  the  numerous  traditions  it  was  the  means  of  arresting 
in  their  passage  to  the  gulf  of  oblivion.  Eusebius  should  be 
read  with  judgment,  that  Ave  may  separate  the  wheat  from  the 
chaff.  We  believe  that  he  meant  to  be  faithful ;  though  we 
cannot  say  of  him,  that  he  "  left  nothing  to  be  forgiven."  But 
his  errors  are  those  of  human  infirmity,  and  afford,  in  our 
opinion,  no  ground  for  those  sweeping  conclusions  which  would 
annihilate,  at  a  blow,  his  historical  credit. 


THE  APOSTLES'  CREED. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Apostles'  Creed  not  the  Primitive  Creed.  —  Was  Kot  framed 
BY  THE  Apostles.  —  Testimonies  of  the  Learned.  —  Unfounded 
Tradition  as  to  its  Origin.  —  Older  Creeds.  —  Original  Form  of 
the  Apostles'  Creed.  —  Comparison  of  it  with  the  Roman  and 
Oriental,  and  that  of  Aquileia.  —  The  Clause  "  Descended  into 
Hell."  —  The  Apostolical  Constitutions.  —  No  Early  Notice  op 
Them.  —  Not  of  Apostolic  Origin.  —  Time  of  their  Composition 
—  Their  Arian  Complexion.  —  Old  Form  of  Ascription. 

Writers  sometimes  speak  of  the  "  primitive  creed  '" ;  by 
which  they  do  not  always  mean  the  creed  of  Peter,  the  oldest 
Christian  creed  of  which  we  have  any  account,  — "  Thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  This  was  the  only 
article  of  faith  originally  deemed  necessary  to  constitute  a 
person  externally  a  Christian.  It  presupposed,  of  course,  a 
belief  in  one  God,  the  Father.  But  the  Jews  had  already 
been  initiated  into  this  belief.  "  Ye  believe  in  God,"  said 
Jesus  :  he  adds,  "  Believe  also  in  me  "  as  the  "  Christ,"  the 
"  Anointed,"  the  commissioned  of  him ;  the  only  additional 
truth  the  belief  of  which  he  required  as  distinctive  of  the  Chris- 
tian profession.  We  find  the  two  articles  again  conjoined  in 
his  last  solemn  prayer :  "  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might 
know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou 
liast  sent."  *  And  thus  we  find  that  Jews  and  others,  already 
acknowledging  the  existence  of  the  only  true  God,  were,  by 
the  Apostles,  admitted  to  baptism,  on  simply  professing,  in  ad- 
dition, their  belief  of  the  latter  article. 

We  here  see  the  origin  of  creeds.  They  were  baptismal 
confessions  ;  baptism  being  regarded  as  an  initiatory  rite,  by 

*  St.  Paul's  creed  corresponded  :  "  There  is  one  God ;  and  one  Mediator 
between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus." 


3l6  THE  apostles'  creed. 

which  a  person  was  introduced  into  the  community  of  believ- 
ers, —  numbered  among  Christians.  These  confessions  were 
the  symbol,  sign,  token,  or  mark,  of  Christian  faith,  as  the 
ceremony  of  baptism  was  of  Christian  consecration.  They 
embraced  originally,  as  we  have  said,  in  addition  to  the  belief 
in  the  existence  of  one  God  over  all,  the  Father  (always  tacitly 
implied,  if  not  expressed),  one  simple  truth,  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  which  was  the  primitive  Christian 
creed,  as  a  belief  in  the  one  only  true  God  constituted  the 
primitive  Jewish  creed.  Other  articles  were  added  from  time 
to  time,  according  to  the  discretion  of  individuals,  or  communi- 
ties of  believers. 

The  most  fruitful  source  of  additions  was  the  numerous 
heresies  which,  in  process  of  time,  sprang  up  in  the  Church, 
in  opposition  to  which  new  clauses  were  successively  introduced 
into  the  creeds,  or  symbols.  They  w'ere  thus  perpetually 
growing  in  bulk,  and,  in  the  same  proportion,  becoming  more 
dark  and  metaphysical,  abounding  more  and  more  in  absurd  or 
unintelligible  distinctions  and  refinements,  till  every  feature  of 
their  original  simplicity  was  obliterated. 

The  Apostles'  Creed  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  the  "  primi- 
tive creed  "  of  Christians  ;  and  it  is  still  sometimes  insinuated 
that  it  was  of  apostolic  origin.  That  it  was  not  the  production 
of  the  Apostles,  however,  is  a  point  which  has  been  long  uni- 
versally conceded  by  the  learned,  both  Protestant  and  Catholic ; 
and  to  go  into  a  discussion  of  it  would  be  a  mere  waste  of  time 
and  labor.  Hear  what  Mosheim,  an  author  whose  statements 
are  entitled  to  some  little  respect,  says  in  reference  to  the 
opinion  which  assigns  the  composition  of  it  to  the  Apostles  : 
"  All  who  have  any  knowledge  of  antiquity  confess  unanimously 
that  this  opinion  is  a  mistake,  and  has  no  foundation."  *  Dr. 
Isaac  Barrow,  an  old  English  divine  of  great  eminence,  speaks 
of  the  "  original  composition  and  use  "  of  the  creed  as  "  not 
known  ";  and  argues,  that,  "  in  ancient  times,  there  was  no 
one  form  generally  fixed  and  agreed  upon  ";  that  "the  most 
ancient "  and  learned  of  the  Fathers  "  were  either  wholly 
Ignorant  that  such  a  form,  pretending  the  Apostles  for  its 
authors,  was  extant,  or  did  not  accord  to  its  pretence,  or  did 
*  Institutes  of  Eccles.  Hist.,  vol.  i.  p.  79,  Murdock's  translation. 


NOT    OF    APOSTOLIC    ORIGIN.  317 

:iot  at  all  rely  on  the  authenticalness  thereof."  *  Dr.  Barrow 
wrote  more  than  a  century  and  a  half  ago.  The  well-known 
Du  Pin,  too,  a  little  later,  resolutely  combated  the  notion,  that 
the  creed  was  written  by  the  Apostles  ;  pronounces  it  "  very 
improbable  ";  says  that  it  is  evident  that  the  Apostles  "did  not 
draw  up  any  one  form  of  faith  comprehended  in  a  set  number 
of  words  ";  that  there  is  "  no  rashness  here  in  departing  from 
the  vulgar  opinion  ";  that  the  advocates  for  its  apostolic  origin 
are  obliged  to  yield,  wdien  urged,  and  acknowledge  that  "  our 
creed  is  not  the  Apostles'  as  to  the  words."  f  "  That  it  is 
rash  to  attribute  it  to  the  Apostles,"  saj^s  Buddeus,  "  is  not 
only  proved  by  the  clearest  reasons,  but  the  more  pi'udent  and 
candid  among  the  Romanists  themselves  confess  it."  J  "All 
learned  persons,"  says  Sir  Peter  King,  "  are  now  agreed,  that 
it  never  was  composed  by  the  Apostles."  §  "  It  is  not  known 
by  whom,  or  at  what  precise  time,"  observes  Bishop  Tomline, 
"  this  creed  was  written."  "  The  Apostles  did  not  prescribe 
any  creed."  ||  "  It  was  by  no  means  the  opinion  in  the 
beginning,"  says  Neander,  "  that  the  Apostles  had  drawn  up 
any  such  confession  in  words  ";  and  he  calls  the  story  of  the 
apostolic  origin  of  the  creed  in  question  a  "  fable."  ^  Hagen- 
bach  does  the  same.  He  thinks  the  creed  "  most  probably 
composed  of  various  confessions  of  faith,  used  by  the  primitive 
Church  in  the  baptismal  service."  It  did  not,  he  says,  proceed 
from  the  Apostles  themselves.** 

We  might  adduce  numerous  other  testimonies  ;  but  the 
above  are  sufficient,  and  more  than  sufficient,  to  show  what  all 
the  world,  with  the  exception  of  those  who  have  not  cared  to 
learn,  know  already,  — that  the  question  of  the  apostolic  origin 
of  the  creed  has  been  long  satisfactorily  settled.  The  tradition 
which  ascribes  to  it  such  an  origin  cannot  be  traced  in  any 
writings  now  extant,  or  of  which  we  have  any  account,  of  a 

*  Exposition  on  the  Creed ;  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  357,  fol.  Lond.  1716. 
t  Hist.  Eccles.  Writers,  vol.  i.  p.  10,  Lond.  1692. 
t  Ecclesia  Apostolica,  p.  191,  Jen.  1729. 
§  Primitive  Church,  part  ii.  p.  57,  Lond.  1719. 

y  Exposition  of  the   Thirty-nine  Articles,  art.  viii.     See  Elements  of  Christian 
Theology,  vol.  ii."  pp.  221-226,  ed.  Lond.  1804. 
T  Neander,  Hist,  of  the  Christ.  Relig.  and  Church,  voL  i.  pp.  306,  307. 
**  Text-Book,  etc.,  First  Period,  §  20,  p.  52. 


318  THE  apostles'  creed. 

date  earlier  than  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  We  first 
meet  with  it  in  Rufinus,  Bishop  of  Aquileia,  who  wrote  late  in 
the  fourth  and  early  in  the  fifth  century.*  "  The  Apostles," 
says  he,  "  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  Fathers,  being 
about  to  disperse  to  carry  the  gospel  into  different  parts, 
assembled  to  determine  the  rule  of  their  future  preacliing  ; 
and,  being  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  each  one  of  them  contributed 
what  was  agreeable  to  his  own  views  ;  thus  forming  a  creed 
which  w^as  to  guide  them  in  their  teachings,  and  to  be  delivered 
as  a  rule  to  believers."  f  The  writer  of  a  piece  falsely  attrib- 
uted to  Aiigustine  proceeds  so  far  as  to  point  out  the  particular 
article  contributed  by  each  Apostle. 

Had  this  tradition  been  founded  in  truth,  it  is  difficult  to 
account  for  the  fact,  that  the  creed  was  not,  like  the  other 
known  productions  of  the  Apostles,  admitted  into  the  number 
of  canonical  writings  ;  that  Luke,  in  relating  the  acts  of  the 
Apostles,  has  observed  a  total  silence  on  the  subject ;  and,  still 
further,  that  no  allusion  to  any  such  document,  as  a  production 
of  the  Apostles,  occurs  in  any  of  the  learned  Fathers  of  greater 
antiquity  than  Rufinus,  —  as  Justin  Martyr,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Origen,  Cyprian,  Lactantius,  the  historian  Eusebius, 
Athanasius,  and  many  others ;  though,  in  their  disputes  with 
heretics,  occasions  innumerable  occurred  on  which  they  could 
have  alleged  nothing  more  appropriate  and  decisive  than 
several  clauses  of  the  creed,  had  it  existed  as  a  known  or 
reputed  relic  of  the  Apostles.  During  the  same  period,  coun- 
cils were  assembled,  some  of  which  framed  creeds  which  were 
regarded  as  authoritative,  and  were  used  in  the  rite  of  baptism 
(an  act  then  deemed  of  the  greatest  solemnity)  ;  yet  in  none 
of  the  canons  of  those  councils,  and  in  none  of  their  creeds,  is 
there  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  existing  creed  claiming  an 
apostolic  sanction.  It  is  further  observable,  that  whenever  the 
ante-Nicene  Fathers  attempt,  as  they  frequently  do,  to  give  a 
sort  of  abstract  of  Christian  doctrine,  they  allow  themselves  no 

*  We  make  no  account  of  a  piece  attributed  to  Ambrose  of  Milan,  contain- 
ing an  allusion  to  tbe  tradition  ;  since  the  document  is  admitted,  by  universal 
consent,  to  be  spurious.  Were  it  genuine,  its  testimony  would  add  little 
weight  to  the  tradition  ;  being  contemporary,  or  nearly  so,  with  that  of  Rufinus 
A.uibrose  died  a.  d.  398.     Rufinus  survived  him  but  twelve  years. 

i  Exposilio  Sijmboli, 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    CREED.  319 

small  latitude  both  of  sentiment  and  expression,  always  differ* 
ing  from  each  other,  and  from  themselves  at  different  times ;  a 
circumstance  which  can  be  explained  only  on  the  supposition, 
that  there  was  no  authoritative  symbol  to  which  they  could 
appeal,  but  that  each  individual  or  body  and  division  of  believers 
were  left  to  express  their  own  views  of  Christian  truth  in  their 
own  way.  The  Roman  creed,  in  the  form  in  which  we  first 
meet  with  it,  differed  from  the  old  Oriental,  in  existence,  it 
would  seem,  before  the  Nicene  or  Constantinopolitan ;  and 
both,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  from  that  of  Aquileia.  It 
differed,  too,  from  the  Jerusalem  creed,  expounded  by  Cyril 
about  A.  D.  340  ;  and  yet,  had  the  Apostles,  before  their  separa- 
tion (as  the  tradition  given  by  Rufinus  states),  composed  a 
creed  to  be  the  rule  of  their  future  preaching,  and  a  standard 
of  faith  to  all  believers,  the  fact  must  have  been  known  to  the 
Christians  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  we  can  hardly  suppose  that  the 
church  in  that  place,  the  mother  of  all  the  rest,  would  have 
suffered  so  valuable  a  legacy  to  be  lost,  and  the  very  memory 
of  it  to  have  perished. 

Rufinus,  in  his  account  of  the  origin  of  the  creed,  was  fol- 
lowed by  Jerome  and  the  Latin  Fathers  generally  ;  and  the 
tradition  was  currently  believed  till  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. Erasmus  was  one  of  the  first  in  modern  times  to  call 
in  question  its  title  to  respect  as  an  apostolic  document ;  and 
subsequent  inquiries,  as  we  have  said,  have  led  to  the  utter 
rejection  of  its  claims  to  be  so  considered. 

It  is  more  difficult  to  trace  the  origin  and  gradual  comple- 
tion of  the  Apostles'  Creed  than  to  refute  tlie  hypothesis 
which  ascribes  it  to  an  act  of  the  Apostles.  In  its  primitive 
and  simpler  form,  it  may  possibly  have  been  the  baptismal 
creed  of  the  Roman  Christians.  As  the  Roman  Church  rose 
to  celebrity,  its  creed,  of  course,  would  grow  in  dignity  and 
importance  along  w^ith  it;  and  when  finally  it  came  to  be 
denominated,  byway  of  eminence,  the  "Apostolical"  Church, 
founded,  according  to  tradition,  by  the  very  chief  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  by  Paul,  it  is  not  surprising  that  its  symbol  also  should 
have  claimed  for  itself  the  distinction  of  an  apostolic  origin. 

There  are  several  other  creeds,  or  summaries  of  faith,  how- 
ever, of  which  an  earlier  record  remains  than  of  this.    Irenaeus, 


320  THE  apostles'  creed. 

Bishop  of  Lyons  in  Gaul,  gives  us  two,  one  shorter  and  one 
longer,  but  wholly  unlike  the  Apostles'  Creed,*  Tertullian, 
about  the  year  200,  knew  nothing  of  the  Apostles'  Creed. 
"  In  its  present  form,  it  was  not  known  to  him  as  a  summary 
of  faith,"  says  Bishop  Kaye.f  Tertullian's  creeds,  of  which 
we  have  three,  want  some  articles  found  in  the  Apostles'. 
One  of  these,  which  he  calls  the  one  only  fixed  and  unchange- 
able rule  of  faith,  we  have  already  quoted.  J  It  is  much 
shorter  and  simpler  than  that  known  as  the  Apostles' ;  and 
what  is  remarkable  is,  it  contains  no  allusion  whatever  to  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  and  has  no  article  on  Christ's  "descent  into  hell," 
on  the  "  holy  Catholic  Church,"  the  "  communion  of  saints," 
or  the  "  remission  of  sins." 

Two  passages  occur  in  the  writings  of  Origen,  containing  a 
creed  or  general  summary  of  Christian  truth,  as  he  under- 
stood it,  and  as  it  was  to  be  gathered,  as  he  says,  from  the 
Scriptures.  §  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  about  the  middle 
of  the  third  century,  comes  next,  who  tells  us  that  persons, 
on  being  baptized,  were  required  to  express  their  belief  "  in 
God,  the  Father ;  his  Son, 'Christ ;  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the  remis- 
sion of  sins;  and  eteimal  life  through  the  holy  Church."  ||  We 
have  another,  by  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  of  Neocsesarea,  a 
disciple  of  Origen,  somewhat  longer,  and  more  dark  and  meta- 
physical, and  as  unlike  as  possible  to  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

Nothing  else  in  the  shape  of  a  creed  occurs  in  any  genuine 
writing  of  the  first  three  centuries.^  The  Nicene  soon  fol- 
lowed, wliich  was  somewhat  augmented  by  the  Council  of 
Constantinople,  A.  D.  381 ;  and  the  Councils  of  Ephesus  and 
Chalcedon  (the  former  a.  d.  431,  and  the  latter  a.  d.  451) 
forbade  the  making  or  the  use  of  any  other,  taking  no  notice 

*  Adv.  Jlcer.,  lib.  i.  c.  10,  and  lib.  iii.  c.  4. 

t  Eccles.  Hist.,  illustrated  from  the  Writings  of  TertuUian,  p.  306,  od  edit. 

{  The  crcL'd  is  prefaced  with  tliese  words  :  "  Regula  quidein  fidei  una  om- 
nino  est,  sola  imniobilis,  et  irrcformabllis."  This  creed  is  given  in  the  first 
chapter  of  his  tract  De  Virginibus  Velandis.  The  other  two  are  found.  Ado. 
Prax.,  c.  2;  and  De  Prcesmpt.  Hceret.,  c.  13. 

§  Comiii.  in  Joan.,  t.  xxxii. ;  Proem  to  Book  of  Principles. 

II  Epist.  Ixxvi. 

Tf  A  confession  of  faith,  contained  in  a  letter  ascribed  to  the  first  Council  of 
Antioch,  and  addressed  to  Paul  of  Samosata,  is  sometimes  quoted  by  those 
who  are  not  aware  that  the  document  is  spurious. 


EARLY    CREEDS    DIFFER.  321 

of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  thus  virtually  excluding  it.*  It 
was  not  customary  to  recite  the  creed  at  every  administra 
tion  of  divine  service,  in  the  Eastern  Church,  before  the  be- 
ginning of  the  sixth  century,  and,  in  the  Western,  till  near 
the  end  of  the  same ;  and  the  creed  thus  recited  was  the 
Nicene,  or  Constantinopolitan,  just  referred  to,  and  not  the 
Apostles'. 

Rufinus  (to  whom,  as  we  have  said,  we  are  indebted  for  the 
tradition  of  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  creed)  has  preserved 
a  copy  of  it  as  it  existed  in  his  time,  the  end  of  the  fourth 
and  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  under  three  different 
forms  as  used  in  different  churches ;  or  rather  he  has  given 
us  three  creeds,  —  the  Roman,  the  Oriental,  and  that  of  Aqui- 
leia.  That  the  Roman,  in  its  more  brief  form,  existed  before 
his  time,  is  not  to  be  doubted,  for  its  simplicity  bears  decided 
marks  of  antiquity ;  but  of  its  history  previous  to  this  period 
nothing  certain  is  known.  Sir  Peter  King,  in  his  excellent 
work,!  I^^s  attempted  to  analyze  it,  and  distinguish  the  articles 
of  which  it  was  originally  composed  from  the  clauses  after- 
wards introduced  in  opposition  to  the  several  heresies  which 
successively  sprang  up  in  the  Church  ;  but,  from  the  paucity 
of  facts  history  has  preserved,  he  is  often  compelled  to  resort 
to  argiiments  which  are  purely  conjectural. 

It  appears  from  Rufinus,  that  the  first  article  of  the  Roman 
Creed,  as  it  stood  in  his  time,  and  of  that  of  Aquileia,  wanted 
the  clause,  "  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth  "  ;  and  that  the  creed 
of  Aquileia  had,  instead  of  it,  "  invisible  and  impassible," 
added,  according  to  Rufinus,  in  opposition  to  the  Sabellian 
heresy.  The  Roman,  too,  omitted  the  epithet  "  one  "  before 
"  God,"  and  stood  simply,  "  I  believe  in  God,  the  Father 
Almighty."  The  second  article  differs  little  in  the  three 
creeds,  except  in  the  collocation  of  the  words,  which  varies 
considerably ;  and,  instead  of  "  Jesus  Christ,"  the  Oriental 
Creed  reads,  owe  Jesus  Christ,  in   common  with  the  Nicene 

*  The  fact  is  adverted  to  by  Charles  Butler  in  the  following  words  :  "  When 
tlie  Council  of  Ephesus,  and  afterwards  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  proscribed 
all  creeds  except  the  Nicene,  neither  of  them  excepted  the  symbol  of  the 
Apostles  from  the  general  proscription." — Historical  and  Literary  Account  of 
Confessions. 

t  History  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  with  Critical  Observations  on  its  several  Articles. 

21 


322  THE  apostles'  creed. 

and  the  older  Greek  creeds  generally.  The  present  creed 
retains  the  article  as  it  stood  in  the  Roman.  The  third  article 
is  the  same  in  the  three  ;  the  present  creed  differing  verbally 
from  all.  In  the  fourth  article,  the  words  "  suffered "  and 
"  dead,"  found  in  the  present  creed,  are  wanting  in  the  three 
ancient ;  and  the  phrase  "  descended  into  hell  "  is  found  only 
in  that  of  Aquileia,  being  wanting  in  both  the  Roman  and 
Oriental.  The  fifth  is  the  same  in  all  four,  as  also  the  sixth, 
excepting  that  the  epithet  "Almighty"  is  wanting  in  that  of 
Aquileia  and  the  Roman.  The  seventh  is  the  same  precisely 
in  all.  In  the  eighth,  the  present  creed  repeats  "  I  believe," 
which  is  not  found  in  this  place  in  either  of  the  three  men- 
tioned by  Rufinus.  In  the  ninth  article,  the  present  creed 
differs  in  three  particulars  from  that  of  Aquileia,  the  Roman, 
and  Oriental.  In  the  three  latter,  the  word  "  catholic "  is 
wanting,  as  also  the  phrase  "  communion  of  saints,"  at  the 
end ;  and  the  words  "  I  believe,"  which  are  wanting  in  the 
preceding  article,  are  inserted  at  the  commencement  of  this. 
In  the  three  old  creeds,  the  article  was,  simply,  (I  believe) 
"  in  the  holy  Church."  The  tenth  article  is  the  same  in  all ; 
the  eleventh  also,  with  a  single  exception  ;  that  of  Aquileia 
having  '•Hhis  body,"  instead  of  "/Ae  body,"  as  in  the  rest. 
With  this  clause  the  three  old  creeds  end  ;  the  twelfth  article, 
or  "  and  the  life  everlasting,"  found  in  the  present  creed,  being 
wanting  in  all.* 

Some  of  these  variations  are,  in  themselves,  unimportant. 
It  will  be  perceived,  however,  from  our  comparison,  that,  since 
the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  the  Roman  or  Apostles'  Creed 
has  received  four  considerable  additions,  —  the  clause  "  de- 
scended into  hell,"  in  the  fourth  article  ;  the  epithet  "  catho- 
lic"; and  the  clause  "communion  of  saints,"  in  the  ninth; 
and  the  whole  of  the  last. 

The  clause  "  descended  into  hell  "  first  appears,  it  would 
seem,  in  the  Arian  creed  of  Ariminum,  A.  D.  359.  It  is  also 
found  in  a  creed  recorded  by  Epiphanius,  who  flourished  in 

*  Ilufin.  Expositio  SymboU.  See  also  Du  Pin,  vol.  i.  p.  3  ;  and  G.  J.  Vossius, 
De  Tribns  iSi/mbolis,  Dissert,  i.  §§  31-43.  Bunsen,  in  his  Analecta  Ante-Nicatna, 
forming  the  Inst  three  volumes  of  his  Christiatiiti/  and  Mankind,  gives  the  three 
jreeds— the  Roman,  the  Oriental,  and  that  of  Aquileia  —  along  with  the 
Nicene.  —  Vol.  iii.  pp.  92-94. 


ADDITIONS    TO    THE    OLD    CREEDS.  323 

the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century ;  and  also  in  that  of  Cjril 
of  Jerusalem.  At  what  time  it  was  admitted  into  the  Roman 
and  Oriental  creeds,  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining.  It 
was  adopted,  as  Sir  Peter  King  thinks,  as  an  antidote  to  the 
heresy  of  Apollinarius,  who  denied  the  reality  of  Christ's 
human  soul.* 

*  The  clause  "  descended  into  hell,"  has  greatly  perplexed  modern  theolo- 
gians. That  such,  however,  was  the  belief  generally  of  Christians  of  the  first 
three,  or  certainly  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  its  absence  from  the 
creed  notwithstanding,  has  been  abundantly  proved,  we  conceive,  by  the  Eev. 
Frederic  Huidekoper,  in  his  very  learned  work  on  the  "  Belief  of  the  First 
Three  Centuries  concerning  Christ's  JVIission  to  the  Underworld."  The  pur- 
pose of  this  "  Underworld  Mission  "  of  Christ,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Huidekoper, 
who  sustains  his  position  by  numerous  quotations  from  the  early  Fathers,  was 
to  "  preach  to  the  Spirits  in  prison,"  that  is,  to  prophets,  patriarchs,  and  right- 
eous men  who  were  there  detained,  and  liberate  them.  Some,  however,  be- 
lieved that  he  preached  to  all,  though  he  did  not  change  their  place  of  abode, 
but  left  them  to  remain  there  till  the  general  resurrection.  But  several  of 
the  most  eminent  of  the  Fathers  were  of  the  opinion  first  stated.  Christ 
descended  to  Hades  to  preach  to  the  people  of  God,  —  to  prophets  and  right- 
eous men,  who  there  waited  his  coming. 

There  he  had  a  fearful  conflict  with  the  Devil  and  overcame  him,  and  took 
with  him  out  of  Hades  the  souls  for  whose  deliverance  he  came,  transferring 
them  to  Paradise.  This  was  transacted  in  the  interval  between  his  death  and 
resurrection.  But  though  victorious  in  the  end,  the  soul  of  Jesus  endured 
terrible  suflering.  It  was  given  as  a  "  ransom,"  not,  says  Origcn,  "  to  God," 
but  to  "  the  Evil  One,  for  he  held  us  in  his  power  until  the  soul  of  Jesus 
should  be  given  him  as  our  ransom,  —  he  being  deceived  by  the  supposition 
that  he  could  hold  it  in  subjection,  and  not  perceiving  that  it  must  be  retained 
at  the  cost  of  torture  which  he  could  not  endure."  (Huidekoper,  p.  87) 
The  Devil  bore  his  defeat  as  best  he  could.  According  to  the  Fathers  he  had 
been  outgeneralled :  the  incarnation  of  Jesus  had  been  concealed  from  him  ;  he 
plotted  his  death  through  the  hands  of  wicked  men.  So  completely  had  he 
been  mystified,  as  Clement  of  Alexandria  has  it ;  but  when  he  found  him  in 
his  own  dominions  and  learned  who  he  was,  he  was  filled  with  consternation, 
for  a  stronger  than  he  had  come,  who  entering  his  house,  —  the  "house  of 
death,"  —  first  bound  him,  after  a  terrible  battle,  then,  as  Origen  expresses  it, 
"  plundered  his  goods,"  that  is,  "  carried  off'  the  souls  he  held,"  and  "  thence 
ascending  on  higli,  led  captive  the  captives." 

Such  was  the  tlieology  of  the  Fathers  connected  with  the  descent  of  Christ 
into  hell.  Mr.  Huidekoper  gives  in  an  Appendix  the  "modern  views"  of 
this  clause  of  the  creed.  The  Lutherans  accepted  it  without  explanation  ;  the 
Calvinists,  finding  it  inconsistent  with  their  belief  of  two  fixed  states  after 
death,  glossed  it  over  by  saying  that  the  soul  of  Jesus  during  his  sufferings, 
and  especially  while  on  the  cross,  was  plunged  into  "  inexpressible  anguish, 
pains,  terrors,  and  hellish  agonies."  The  Anglican  Church  adopted  it  at  first 
—  in  the  fourth  year  of  Edward  —  with  an  explanation  which  was  afterwards, 
in  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  omitted.    Pearson,  in  his  "  Exposition  of  the  Creed," 


324  THE  apostles'  creed. 

The  term  "  Catholic  "  first  appears  in  the  creed  of  Alex- 
ander of  Alexandria,  ^bout  the  period  of  the  rise  of  the  Arian 
controversy.  It  is  found  also  in  Epiphanius,  from  whom  it 
passed  to  the  Latins.  At  what  time  it  found  its  way  into 
the  Roman  Creed,  is  uncertain.  The  clause  "  communion  of 
saints  "  was  added,  as  is  supposed,  in  reference  to  the  schism 
of  the  Donatists,  —  probably  during  the  fifth  century.  It  is 
not  known  on  what  occasion,  or  when,  the  last  clause,  relating 
to  the  "  life  everlasting,"  was  added.  The  creed  first  appears, 
in  its  present  form,  in  the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great,  who 
died  A.  D.  604. 

The  Apostles'  Creed  is  not  a  Trinitarian  document,  in  the 
modern  sense  of  the  term ;  for  it  speaks  of  no  co-equal  Three 
—  no  Three  in  One.  The  same  is  true  of  the  other  creeds 
we  have  compared  with  it,  and  of  the  writings  attributed  to 
the  Apostolic  Fathers.  These  writings,  as  we  have  seen,  are 
not  witnesses  for  the  Trinity.  The  supremacy  of  the  Father 
was  a  doctrine  of  the  Church  when  they  were  written,  when- 
ever it  was. 

In  connection  with  the  Apostles'  Creed,  we  must  say  some- 
thing of  the  "Apostolical  Constitutions,"  including  what  are 
called  the  "  Canons  of  the  Apostles."  *  We  have  no  inten- 
tion, however,  of  entering  into  any  elaborate  discussion  on  the 
subject  of  their  origin,  history,  and  worth.  We  shall  content 
ourselves  with  the  briefest  possible  notice.  These,  no  more 
than  the  creed,  are  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Apostles  as  their 
authors. 

There  is  no  notice  of  any  production,  under  the  title  of 
"Apostolical  Constitutions,"  by  any  writer  during  the  first  three 
centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  nor  until  late  in  the  fourth. 
Epiphanius,  who  wrote  during  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth 
century,  and  died  early  in  the  fifth,  is  the  first  who  names  a 

devotes  a  long  article  to  the  subject,  which  he  concludes  as  follows  :  "And 
thus,  and  for  these  purposes,  may  every  Christian  say,  I  believe  that  Christ 
descended  into  hell  "  (pp.  340-380,  ed.  Lond.,  1842).  This  he  acknowledges 
was  the  universal  belief  of  the  Christian  Fathers  ;  on  this  point,  —  "  Clirist's 
local  descent  into  the  infernal  parts,  —  "  he  says  (p.  357),  "  they  all  agree." 

*  An  edition  of  the  "  Constitutions  "  and  "  Canons  "  was  published  in  New 
Y'ork  in  1848,  with  a  "  prize  essay  "  on  their  "  origin  and  contents,"  translated 
from  the  German,  by  Irah  Chase,  D.  D. 


APOSTOLICAL    CONSTITUTIONS   SPURIOUS.  325 

work  with  this  title.  He  quotes  from  what  he  calls  the  "Con- 
stitution of  the  Apostles,"  —  a  composition,  he  says,  which, 
though  held  of  doubtful  authority  by  many,  is  not  to  be  con- 
demned, since  it  contains  a  true  account  of  the  ecclesiastical 
discipline  and  laws.  Eusebius  and  Athanasius,  it  is  true,  refer 
to  what  they  call  the  "  Teachings "  or  "  Doctrine "  of  the 
Apostles ;  and  it  has  been  thought  by  some,  that  under  this 
title  they  designated  the  work  afterwards  quoted  by  Epipha- 
nius.  But  of  this  there  is  no  decisive  evidence,  and  their 
identity  is  matter  of  conjecture  merely.  With  the  exception 
of  Epiphanius,  if  he  be  an  exception,  none  of  the  distinguished 
writers  of  the  fourth  century  allude  to  the  work ;  and  the 
next  mention  we  find  of  it  is  in  what  is  known  as  the  "  Incom- 
plete Work  on  Matthew,"  written  after  the  death  of  Theodo- 
sius  the  Great,  and  it  may  have  been  late  in  the  fifth  century. 
This  is  all  the  external  evidence  relating  to  the  existence  of 
such  a  work,  found  within  the  first  five  centuries ;  and  it  is 
not  certain  that  our  present  "  Constitutions  "  is  the  same  work 
quoted  by  Epiphanius.  If  substantially  the  same,  it  is  very 
clear  that  it  has  been  interpolated,  or  has  received  additions, 
or  both,  since  his  time. 

The  work  claims  to  have  the  Apostles  for  its  authors,  and 
is  sent  out  in  their  name  throug-h  their  "fellow -minister, 
Clement."  It  begins  thus :  "  The  Apostles  and  elders  to  all 
who  from  among  the  Gentiles  have  believed  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ :  Grace  and  peace  from  Almighty  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  etc.  In  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  eighth  book, 
we  have  these  words :  "  Wherefore,  we,  the  twelve  Apostles  of 
the  Lord,  who  are  now  together,  give  you  in  charge  these  our 
'  Divine  Constitutions '  concerning  every  ecclesiastical  form ; 
there  being  present  with  us  Paul  the  chosen  vessel,  our  fellow- 
apostle,  and  James  the  bishop,"  etc.  Again,  "  Now,  this  we 
all  in  common  proclaim,"  etc.  But  sometimes  one  of  the 
number  speaks  individually,  thus:  "I  Peter,"  or  "I  Andrew," 
"  say  ";  "  I  who  was  beloved  by  the  Lord,"  "  I  Philip,"  or 
"  I  Bartholomew,"  "  make  this  Constitution."  And  so  of  the 
rest,  each  in  turn  speaking  in  his  proper  person.  No  one  now, 
however,  thinks  of  attributing  the  work  either  to  the  Apostles 
or  to  the  Roman  Clement.     It  is  universally  admitted  to  be 


326  THE  apostles'  creed. 

spurious ;  and  so  far  as  the  form  is  concerned,  is,  in  truth,  a 
very  bunghng  forgery.  It  was  written  after  the  hierarchical 
principle  began  to  develop  itself,  and  had  made  some  progress 
in  the  Church ;  and  treats  largely  of  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
forms,  and  observances  ;  not  omitting,  however,  duties  of  prac- 
tical morality.  The  first  book,  which  is  exceedingly  brief,  is 
"  Concerning  the  Laity  ";  the  second,  "  Concerning  Bishops, 
Presbyters,  and  Deacons";  the  third,  "Concerning  Widows"; 
the  subject  of  the  fourth  is  "  Orphans  ";  of  the  fifth,  "  Mar- 
tyrs ";  of  the  sixth,  "  Schisms  ";  the  seventh  is  "  Concerning 
Deportment  and  the  Eucharist,  and  Initiation  into  Christ "; 
the  eighth  is  "  Concerning  Gifts  and  Ordinations  and  Ecclesi- 
astical Canons,"  and  contains,  as  well  as  the  seventh,  various 
prayers  and  liturgical  services. 

Rejecting  the  claim  of  the  "  Constitutions  "  to  an  apostolic 
origin,  we  may  observe,  that,  in  the  absence  of  all  direct  his- 
torical testimony,  their  age  is  matter  of  conjecture,  founded  on 
the  character  of  their  contents,  which,  though  it  precludes  a 
very  early  date,  leaves  room  for  no  inconsiderable  latitude  of 
opinion  as  to  the  precise  period  of  their  composition,  if  they  were 
not,  as  is  probable,  the  growth  of  different  periods.  It  is  im- 
possible to  say  positively  even  in  what  century  they  assumed 
their  present  form.  Several  of  the  most  eminent  among  the 
earlier  Catholic  writers  of  modern  times  —  as  Bellarmine, 
who  takes  notice  of  their  rejection  by  the  Trullan  Council, 
A.  D.  092 ;  Baronius,  Cardinal  du  Perron,  Petavius  (Petau), 
and  others  —  have  pronounced  them  spurious,  though  few  of 
them  have  undertaken  to  decide  when  or  by  whom  they  were 
written.  Petavius  observes,  that  they  are  different  from  the 
"  Constitutions  "  of  Epiphanius.  Tillemont  says,  that  they 
were  a  fabrication  of  the  sixth  century.  Others  ascribe  them 
to  the  third  or  fourth.  Du  Pin  thinks  them  not  the  same 
work  mentioned  by  Eusebius  and  Athanasius,  and  conjectures 
tliat  they  "  belong  to  the  third,  or  rather  the  fourth  century"; 
but  that  they  were  "  from  time  to  time  corrected,  altered,  and 
Huo;mented,  according  to  the  various  customs  of  different  ages 
and  countries."  Cotelerius  expresses  doubts  whether  they 
were  known  to  Epiphanius ;  and,  at  all  events,  thinks  them 
interpolated  and  corrupted. 


APOSTOLICAL   CONSTITUTIONS   OF   LATE   OEIGIN.  327 

The  opinions  of  Protestants  have  been  not  less  divei'se  as 
to  the  time  of  their  composition.  Blondel,  without  assigning 
his  reasons,  places  them  late  in  the  second  century.  William 
Beveridge  ascribes  them  to  Clement  of  Alexandina,  and  not  to 
Clement  of  Rome,  first  mentioned  as  the  author  by  the  Trul- 
lan  Council  above  referred  to.  But  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
if  he  wrote  them,  must  have  stood  self-condemned  ;  for  the 
"  Constitutions  "  do  not  allow  the  reading  of  Heathen  authors, 
who  constituted  his  favorite  study,  and  with  whom  he  prob- 
ably was  more  familiar  than  any  other  man  of  his  time.  For 
other  reasons,  we  may  pronounce  the  opinion,  that  he  was  the 
author  of  the  work,  a  very  strange  one,  and  wholly  untenable. 
Pearson  regards  it  as  a  compilation,  with  alterations  and  addi- 
tions, made  up,  after  the  age  of  Epiphanius,  from  writings 
already  in  existence,  some  of  them  ancient.  Grabe,  in  the 
main,  agrees  with  Pearson.  On  the  other  hand,  Whiston  de- 
clares them  to  be  the  "  most  sacred  of  the  canonical  books  of 
the  New  Testament ";  and  says  that  their  contents  were 
derived  immediately  from  the  Saviour,  during  the  forty  days 
he  passed  with  the  Apostles,  after  his  resurrection  and  first 
ascension ;  *  and  that  the  place  of  their  delivery  was  Mount 
Zion,  whence  the  "  Christian  law  was  to  proceed."  Le  Clerc 
speaks  of  them  as  probably  collected  and  enlarged  at  different 
times  from  the  practice  of  the  churches  ;  though  he  seems  to 
favor  the  opinion  of  Thomas  Bruno,  or  Brown,  a  canon  of 
Windsor,  who  makes  the  principal  collector  to  be  Leontius,  an 
Arian  bishop  of  the  fourth  century.  Spanheim  places  the 
completion  of  the  work  at  the  end  of  the  fifth  century.  Sam- 
uel Basnage  considers  them  as  different  from  the  "  Constitu- 
tions "  of  Epiphanius,  and  as  originating  at  a  subsequent 
period.  Ittig  and  Usher  refer  their  origin  to  the  fourth  cen- 
tury ;  and  Daille,  who  brought  all  his  immense  erudition  to 
bear  on  the  question  of  their  genuineness,  and  denies  that  they 
were  the  same  woi'k  quoted  by  Epiphanius,  or  the  work  or 
works  referred  to  by  Eusebius  and  Athanasius,  contents  him- 
self with  expressing  the  opinion,  that  they  were  written  after 
the  Council  of  Nice,  and  before  the  end  of  the  fifth  century, 
without  attempting  to  be  more  definite. 

*  Whiston  supposed  that  our  Lord  asccMided  iiii mediately  after  his  resurrec- 
tion, and  returned  to  instruct  his  Apostles  during  the  forty  days. 


828  THE  apostles'  creed. 

Recent  German  critics  are  no  more  satisfactory.  Thus 
Schrockh  ascribes  the  collection  to  the  thii'd  or  fourth  century ; 
Starck,  who  supposes  it  to  be  made  up  of  various  materials 
scattered  here  and  there,  makes  it  date  from  the  fifth  century ; 
Neander  thinks  it  grew  up  in  the  Oriental  Church  "  out  of 
different  pieces,  whose  ages  extend  from  the  latter  part  of 
the  second  to  the  fifth  century,"  being  not  identical  with  the 
"  Constitutions  "  of  Epiphanius  ;  Schmidt  assigns  to  it  a  later 
origin ;  Rosenmiiller  will  not  undertake  to  settle  the  time ; 
Augusti,  as  usual  with  him,  does  not  trouble  himself  about  the 
precise  date ;  while  Kestner  discovers  a  "  Christian  confeder- 
acy," at  the  head  of  which  stood  Clement  of  Rome,  of  which 
the  old  "Apostolical  Constitutions  "  were  a  sort  of  "  statute- 
book,"  in  the  place  of  which,  the  confederacy  being  dissolved 
in  the  time  of  Epiphanius,  the  new  "  Constitutions "  were 
substituted. 

Our  readers  will  see  by  this  time  the  little  foundation  there 
is  for  any  positive  opinion  on  the  subject  of  the  authorship  and 
date  of  the  "Constitutions."  The  "Canons"  —  of  which 
eighty-five  appear  in  our  present  collection,  a  smaller  number 
in  the  older  collections  —  are  also  of  uncertain  antiquity ; 
though  some  of  them,  no  doubt,  describe  the  discipline  and 
usages  of  the  church  at  an  early  period,  and  are  older  than  the 
"  Constitutions." 

The  Arian  complexion  of  the  Constitutions  generally  has 
been  frequently  commented  upon.  On  this  point,  however, 
we  must  discriminate.  We  will  not  undertake  to  say,  that 
they  distinctly  affirm  the  creation  of  the  Son  out  of  nothing, 
or  use  other  language  exclusively  Arian.  But  this,  at  least, 
we  may  say  with  truth,  that  they  uniformly  assert  the  supremacy 
of  the  Fathei',  and  the  subordinate  and  derived  nature  of  the 
Son.  Their  testimony  on  these  points  is  not  casual  and 
isolated,  thus  pointing  to  interpolations  by  an  Arian  hand  :  it 
interpenetrates  their  whole  language,  and  cannot  be  torn  away 
without  destroying  their  wliole  texture  and  fabric. 

In  parts  of  them  the  creation  of  the  world  seems  to  be 
ascribed  directly  to  God  ;  in  other  parts  and  more  frequently, 
however,  they  represent  the  Son  as  his  instrument  in  the  crea- 
tion.    Thus  :  "  Who  by  him  didst  make  before  all  things  the 


APOSTOLICAL    CONSTITUTIONS   NOT   TEINITARIAN.  329 

Cherubim  and  the  Seraphim,  the  seons  and  hosts,  the  powers 
and  authorities,  the  principahties  and  thrones,  the  archangels 
and  angels  ;  and  after  all  these  didst  by  him  make  this  visible 
world  and  all  things  that  are  therein."  This  is  from  the  eighth 
book,  generally  supposed  to  be  of  later  origin  than  the  rest.* 
Eternity  proper  is  not  ascribed  to  the  Son,  as  the  following 
language  clearly  testifies.  Thus :  "  It  is  meet  and  right  be- 
fore all  things  to  sing  a  hymn  to  thee,  who  art  the  true  God, 
who  art  before  all  beings  ;  .  .  .  .  who  didst  bring  all  things 
out  of  nothing  into  being  through  thine  only-begotten  Son,  but 
didst  before  all  ages,  by  thy  will,  thy  power,  and  thy  goodness, 
without  any  intermediate  agent  beget  him,  thy  only-begotten 
Son,  God  the  Word,  the  living  Wisdom,"  etc.  Thus  he  had 
an  origin,  God  alone  being  unoriginate,  the  unbegotten  God. 
To  "  suppose  that  Jesus  Christ  himself  is  the  God  over  all," 
making  him  identical  with  the  Father,  the  writer  regards  as 
impious. f  Christ,  we  are  told,  "  doeth  nothing  of  himself,  but 
doeth  always  those  things  which  please  the  Father."  J 

Here  are  two  distinct  beings  :  one  supreme,  Infinite,  "  with- 
out beginning,  independent,  and  without  a  master,"  the  other, 
before  the  angels  and  <»ons,  and  God's  instrument  in  making 
them,  being  subject  to  his  will,  but  having  a  beginning  though 
dating  far  back,  before  the  ages,  co-equality  with  God  being 
expressly  excluded.     This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Constitutions. 

In  the  seventh  book  the  old  form  of  ascription  at  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  prayers  is  retained,  giving  glory  "  to  the  Father, 
through  the  Son,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,"  when  the  Spirit-  is 
mentioned  at  all ;  which  furnishes  an  argument  for  the  com- 
parative antiquity  of  this  portion  of  the  Constitutions.  In  the 
eighth  book,  to  which,  as  we  have  said,  is  ascribed  a  later 
origin,  we  still  find  the  old  doxology,  but  more  generally  glory 
is  ascribed  to  the  Father  along  with  the  Son  and  the  Spirit. 
Thus  the  slow  growth  of  the  Trinity  is  visible. 

Undoubtedly  we  meet  in  the  volume  many  opinions  and 
usages  which  prevailed  during  and  before  the  days  of  Origen. 
But  this  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  supposition,  that  it  was 
composed,  or  the  pieces  contained  in  it  were  collected  much 
later.  With  all  the  chano;es  which  were  from  timo  to  time 
*  Lib.  viii.  c.  12.  t  Lib.  vi.  c.  26.  t  Lib.  ii.  c.  26. 


330  THE  apostles'  ceeed. 

creeping  into  the  Church,  many  of  her  principles  and  customs, 
especially  those  relating  to  worship  and  life,  possessed  a  degree 
of  permanency  ;  remaining  without  alteration  for  considerable 
periods.  Parts  of  the  woi*k  undoubtedly  belong  to  one  period, 
and  parts  to  another.  There  is  no  necessity  of  referring  it  to 
a  single  age  or  a  single  hand.  It  appears  from  its  language  to 
be  an  accumulation  from  different  ages,  or  was  made  up  of 
fragments  belonging  to  different  periods  of  the  Church  ;  but  we 
find  no  trace  of  the  Athanasian  Trinity  in  any  part  of  it. 


THE  FATHERS  AS  EXPOSITORS.  331 


CHAPTER  11. 

The  Fathers  ks  Expositors.  —  Change  in  the  Meaning  of  Terms 
AND  Phrases.  —  Language  of  the  Fathers.  —  Examples.  —  In  what 
Points  the  Trinity  of  the  Fathers  differed  from  the  Modern. 
—  Testimony  of  the  Learned. — Petavius,  HnET,  Prof.  Stuart. — 
The  Fathers  testify  against  each  other.  —  Councils.  —  The 
Athanasian  Creed. 

With  the  history  of  the  Creed  and  "  Constitutions "  we 
have  now  done.  But,  in  this  connection,  we  cannot  forbear 
alludino;  to  the  rank  claimed  for  the  Fathers  of  the  first  four 
centuries,  from  Irenaeus  down  to  John  Chrysostom,  as  con- 
stituting the  "  best  school  for  sacred  scriptural  interpretation." 
For,  sincerely  as  we  venerate  the  piety  of  these  old  writers, 
and  the  many  noble  traits  of  character  they  exhibited,  worthy 
of  all  admiration  ;  sensible  as  we  are  of  the  value  of  their 
writings  as  repositories  of  facts  we  could  derive  from  no  other 
source  ;  and  highly  as  we  esteem  their  labors  and  sacrifices, 
by  means  of  which  Christianity  triumphed  over  the  polluted 
and  debasing  superstitions  of  Paganism,  —  we  had  supposed 
that  the  time  had  gone  by  when  their  expositions  of  Christian 
truth  and  the  Christian  records  would  be  appealed  to  as  entitled 
to  any  extraordinary  respect. 

Many  of  them  were  learned  ;  but  few  of  them  knew  how  to 
apply  their  learning  to  any  good  purpose.  With  the  exception 
of  Origen  and  Jerome,  they  were  not  versed  in  the  original 
language  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  relied  on  the  faulty  version 
of  the  Seventy,  to  which  they  attributed  a  sort  of  inspiration. 
Of  the  Arabic,  the  Syi'iac,  and  other  languages  (having  an 
affinity,  greater  or  less,  with  the  Hebrew,  or  useful  in  unlock- 
ing sources  of  information  tending;  to  throw  light  on  Jewish 
records  and  opinions),  they  were  ignorant.  The  theology  of 
most  of  them  exhibited  a  strange  and  unnatural  union  of 
Christian  doctrines  with  the  philosophy  taught  in  the  Platonic 
schools  of  Alexandria,  the  most  worthless  that  ever  tasked  the 


iio2  THE   apostles'    CREED. 

speculative  intellect ;  *  and  they  were,  almost  without  excep- 
tion, addicted  to  the  fanciful  modes  of  interpretation,  and 
particularly  the  allegorizing  spirit,  which  characterized  the 
same  schools.  There  is  no  species  of  absurdity,  in  interpreta- 
tion, reasoning,  faith,  or  opinion,  of  which  their  writings  do  not 
furnish  abundant  examples.  But  we  are  not  about  to  discuss 
the  merits  of  the  Fathers.  We  consider  the  question  touching 
their  claims  to  respect,  so  far  as  the  point  under  consideration 
is  concerned,  as  already  fully  settled  in  the  several  learned 
treatises  which  have  at  different  times  appeared  on  the  subject. 

A  topic  of  some  importance,  connected  with  reverence  for 
the  Fathers  as  interpreters  and  guides,  is  the  meaning  of 
terms.  Much  misapprehension  and  error,  relating  to  the  tenor 
and  spirit  of  the  writings  of  Christian  antiquity,  have  come 
from  inattention  to  the  fact,  tliat  the  force  and  signification  of 
terms  and  phrases  perpetually  change  with  time.  The  mean- 
ing of  language  is  in  a  state  of  continual  mutation,  while  the 
written  letter  remains  unaltered.  Words,  it  is  well  known, 
are  often  retained  long  after  the  ideas  originally  conveyed  by 
them  have  disappeared  or  have  become  essentially  modified. 
This  is  especially  the  case,  when  the  subject,  about  which 
they  are  employed,  is  attended  with  any  intrinsic  obscurity. 

The  consequences  of  not  attending  to  this  fact  are  obvious. 
Terms  and  expressions  occur  in  an  ancient  writing,  which, 
according  to  their  modern  and  obvious  use  with  which  habit 
has  rendered  us  familiar,  suggest  to  our  minds  certain  ideas, 
or  awaken  a  particular  train  of  associations.  Now,  if  we  take 
it  for  granted  that  these  terms  and  expressions  were  connected 
in  the  mind  of  the  author  of  the  writing  with  the  same  ideas 
and  associations  (that  is,  that  they  were  used  by  him  in  their 
present  and  acquired  sense),  we  shall  be  liable,  it  is  evident, 
perpetually  to  mistake  his  meaning.  To  take  a  comparatively 
modern  instance  :  the  English  word  "  worship,"  at  the  time 
our  present  version  of  the  Bible  was  made,  was  used  to  express 
not  only  divine  homage,  but  civil  respect.  This  latter  mean- 
ing is  nearly  or  quite   obsolete.      But  the   word  bears  this 

*  Worthless  as  a  whole,  though  portions  of  it  are  elevated  and  surpassingly 
beautiful ;  as  any  one  may  discover  who  will  look  into  Plotinus  and  writers 
of  that  stamp. 


OLD   TEEMS   TAKEN   IN   A   MODERN   SENSE.  333 

sense  several  times  in  our  English  Bibles,  and  frequently  in 
writings  of  the  period  to  which  the  translation  belongs,  and 
those  of  earlier  date.  It  is  easy  to  see  into  what  blunders 
a  careless  reader,  or  one  acquainted  only  with  the  signification 
of  the  term  as  now  generally  used,  and  not  suspecting  it  of 
ever  bearing  any  other,  who  should  sit  down  to  read  those 
writings,  would  fall,  in  consequence  of  this  ambiguity  of  the 
term. 

This  is  not  the  only  circumstance  which  has  been  the  occa- 
sion of  important  misapprehensions  of  the  language  of  the 
Fathers.  Their  writings  are  attended  with  peculiar  obscurity 
in  consequence  of  the  intellectual  habits  and  prevailing  philo- 
sophical systems  of  the  period  at  which  they  were  produced. 
To  ascertain  an  author's  meaning  with  any  tolerable  exact- 
ness, it  is  often  necessary  to  know  something  of  the  modes  of 
thinking  and  feeling  peculiar  to  his  age.  If  he  wrote  on  theo- 
logical subjects,  it  is  important  to  become  acquainted  with  the 
theological  and  philosophical  opinions  of  his  times,  or  those 
which  were  current  in  the  schools  in  which  he  was  educated, 
and  among  the  class  of  writers  whose  works  constituted  his 
favorite  reading. 

Now,  as  the  early  Fathers,  generally,  were  educated  in  the 
schools  of  the  later  Platonists,  or  were  strongly  tinctured  with 
the  opinions  of  those  schools,  and  borrowed  from  them  several 
terms,  some  of  which  they  employed  to  express  the  most  sub- 
tile and  obscure  ideas  which  entered  into  their  theology,  some 
acquaintance  with  the  philosophy  of  the  Alexandrian  Platonists, 
as  well  as  with  Jewish  literature  and  opinions,  becomes  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  a  correct  interpretation  of  their  language. 
We  do  not  say  that  this  is  the  only  sort  of  learning  necessary 
to  a  right  understanding  of  the  Fathers  :  but  this  is  indispen- 
sable ;  and,  without  it,  all  other  is  unavailing. 

Several  expressions  in  use  among  Trinitarians  of  the  present 
day  occur  in  the  writings  of  tlie  Fathers  of  the  second,  third, 
and  fourth  centuries.  Modern  writers,  as  it  frequently  hap- 
pens, assume  that  these  expressions  were  used  by  them  in 
their  modern  sense.  If  they  will  look  a  little  deeper  intc 
Christian  antiquity,  they  will  find  ample  evidence  that  they 
were  employed  by  the  Fathers  in  a  sense  widely  different 
from  their  present. 


334  THE  apostles'  creed. 

Take  the  terms  "  one,"  or  the  "  same."  Nothing  is  sus- 
ceptible of  clearer  proof,  than  that  the  Fathers,  when  they 
speak  of  the  Son  as  of  one  or  the  same  nature  with  God,  refer, 
not  to  a  numerical,  but  only  to  a  specific  sameness.  All  they 
meant  was,  that  the  Son  partook  of  one  and  the  same  specific 
nature  with  the  Father,  —  that  is,  a  divine  ;  just  as  two  indi- 
viduals of  our  race  partake  of  one  and  the  same  specific  na- 
ture, —  that  is,  a  human  ;  divine  begetting  divine,  as  human 
begets  human.  They  never  regarded  them  as  constituting 
numerically  one  being.  Modern  Trinitarians  use  the  term  as 
referring  to  a  numerical  identity.  Of  this  the  Fathers  never 
dreamed.  They  found  no  difficulty  in  calling  the  Son  "  God"  ; 
for,  according  to  the  prevailing  views  of  the  age,  the  term  did 
not  necessarily  imply  self-existence.  The  Son  was  God,  as 
they  explained  it,  in  virtue  of  his  birth,  his  derivation  from 
the  Father ;  the  divine  nature  being  transmitted.  So  Justin 
Martyr,  speaking  of  the  Son,  says,  "  Who,  since  he  is  the  first- 
begotten  Logos  of  God,  is  God." 

Another  term  employed  in  connection  with  the  Trinity,  and 
the  use  of  which  tends  to  mislead,  is  hypostasis^  understood  by 
the  moderns  in  the  theological  sense  of  person  as  distinguished 
from  substance,  but  uniformly,  by  the  old  Fathers,  in  the  sense 
of  essence.  Thus,  when  they  call  the  Father  and  the  Son 
two  hypostases,  they  mean  two  in  essence  ;  that  is,  constituting 
two  real  beings. 

Again  :  the  creed  of  Nice  tells  us  that  the  Son  is  consub- 
stantial,  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father.  But  this 
term  was  used  by  the  Fathers,  not  in  its  modern  sense,  but 
in  the  old  Platonic  signification,  to  express,  as  we  have  said, 
specific  sameness  of  nature,  sameness  of  kind,  similarity,  like- 
ness. The  Son  was  of  like  nature  with  the  Father,  not  numer- 
ically the  same  being.  So  the  Fathers  of  Nice,  as  Eusebius 
in  Ids  letter  to  his  people  tells  us,  understood  the  term.  So  it 
was  used  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  if  their  language  has 
any  consistency  ;  and  so  Athanasius  himself,  in  his  earlier 
writings,  distinctly  explains  it,  taking  the  examples  of  a  man 
and  a  dog.  One  man,  he  tells  us,  is  consubstantial  with 
another,  and  so  is  one  dog ;  but  a  dog  and  a  man  are  not 
consubstantial. 


LANGUAGE    OF    THE    FATHSPvS    MISINTERPRETED.  335 

The  epithet  "eternal,"  sometimes  apphed  to  the  Son,  was 
ambiguous ;  meaning,  as  the  Fathers  sometimes  used  it,  simply 
before  the  ivorld  was,  or  having  no  reference  to  any  specific 
time.  Whenever,  in  speaking  of  the  San,  they  used  it  in  its 
strict  sense,  it  was  in  reference  to  a  notion  generally  enter- 
tained by  them,  that  the  Son  had,  from  all  eternity,  a  sort  of 
potential  existence  in  the  Father ;  that  is,  as  an  attribute ;  * 
his  Logos,  Reason,  or  Wisdom,  Avhich,  by  a  voluntary  act  of 
the  Father,  was  converted  into  a  real  being,  and  became  his 
instrument  in  forming  the  world. 

Writers  do  not  discriminate.  They  go  on  the  supposition, 
as  we  have  said,  that  the  langiaage,  which  occurs  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Fathers,  respecting  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit, 
was  uniformly  employed  by  them  in  its  modern  and  acquired 
signification. 

The  current  language  (not  occasionally  an  "  unguarded 
expression")  of  all  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers,  understood 
according  to  correct  principles  of  interpretation,  shows  that 
they  held  the  Son  to  be  inferior  to  the  Father,  and  a  distinct 
being  from  him  ;  and  the  Nicene  Creed  teaches  no  other 
doctrine. 

The  confident  assertion  now  sometimes  made  by  Trinitari- 
ans, that  the  early  Fathers  were  sound  on  the  subject  of  the 
Trinity,  will  not  do.  The  Trinity  of  the  Fathers  differed 
from  the  modern  doctrine  in  the  following  particulars.  First, 
as  regards  the  Father  and  Son,  they  asserted,  in  the  first 
place,  the  real  subordination  and  inferiority  of  the  latter  to-  the 
former  in  his  whole  nature.  As  a  real  person  or  individual 
being,  they  did  not,  in  the  second  place,  hold  the  proper  eter- 
nity of  the  Son ;  though  they  believed,  that  as  an  attribute  or 
property  of  the  Father,  which  in  their  view  he  originally  was, 
he  had  always  subsisted,  since  there  never  was  a  time  when 
the  Father  was  without  reason,  wisdom,  logos.  In  the  third 
place,  they  did  not  admit  that  the  Son  was  numerically  the 
same  being  with  the  Father,  but  only  of  the  same  specific  or 
common  nature,  —  that  is,   divine ;    being  not   God  himself, 

*  An  attribute  might  be  said  to  have  a  sort  of  potential  self-subsistence  or 
personality,  which  became  real  by  a  voluntary  act  of  the  Father  converting 
it  into  a  distinct  self-conscious  being. 


336  THE  apostles'  creed. 

but,  by  birth  and  derivation,  like  him,  as  a  human  being  is  like 
the  parent,  or  of  like  nature  with  him ;  in  this  sense,  consub- 
stantial.  In  regard  to  the  Spirit,  the  difference  was  still 
greater. 

Of  this  disparity,  admitted  by  learned  Trinitarians,  writers 
frequently  take  no  notice.  Yet,  until  it  can  be  disproved,  it 
is  an  abuse  of  language,  a  fallacy,  a  gross  imposition,  to  affirm 
that  the  Fathers  bear  uniform  testimony  to  the  Trinity.  To 
prove  this,  it  is  necessary  to  show,  not  merely  that  the  expres- 
sions still  current  on  tlie  subject  are  found  in  the  writings  of 
the  early  Fathers,  but  that  these  expressions  were  used  by 
them  in  the  sense  they  now  bear  among  approved  Trinita- 
rians ;  a  task  which  has  never  yet  been  accomplished,  and 
never  will  be. 

They  who  affirm  that  the  early  Fathers  were  not  believers 
in  the  Trinity,  according  to  modern  explanations  of  the  doc- 
trine, are  sometimes  charged  with  ignorance  of  Christian  an- 
tiquity.  But  let  us  see  how  this  matter  stands.  Will  any 
one  charge  Petavius,  author  of  the  "  Dogmata  Theologica," 
with  ignorance  of  Christian  antiquity  ?  Was  Huet,  Bishop 
of  Avranches,  and  author  of  the  "  Origeniana,"  ignorant  ? 
Was  Cudworth  ignorant  ?  Yet  with  these,  and  many  others 
we  could  name,  —  good  Trinitarians  too,  —  the  asserter  of  the 
orthodoxy  of  the  Fathers,  in  the  modern  sense,  will  find  him- 
self directly  at  issue. 

Petavius  adduces  a  great  mass  of  evidence  to  show  that  the 
most  distinguished  of  the  Fathers,  before  the  Council  of  Nice, 
taught  the  inferiority  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Spirit  to  the  Son.* 

"  Certainly,"  says  Huet,  "  Tatian,  and  an  older  than  Tatlan, 
—  Justin,  —  taught  erroneous  views  of  the  Trinity."  The- 
ophilus  of  Antioch,  he  says,  "  falls  under  the  same  censure." 
With  others  it  was  still  worse.  "  For,"  he  continues,  "  things 
shameful  and  not  to  be  endured  were  tittered  by  Tertullian 
and  Lactantius,  as  also  by  Clement,  Dionysius,  and  Pierius  of 

*  See,  particularly,  De  Trinitate,  lib.  i.  cc.  3,  4,  5.  Will  any  say,  that  Peta- 
vius, as  a  Catholic,  was  interested  in  depressing  the  ancient  Fathers,  as  the 
Protestants  made  use  of  them  in  the  Popish  controversy  1  They  must  be 
aware  that  this  is  not  to  refute  him. 


STATEMENTS   OF   PROFESSOR   STUART.  337 

A-lexandria,  and  many  others."  When  Bellarmine,  he  says 
still  further,  "  defends  Origen  on  the  ground,  that  (his  pre- 
ceptor Clement,  and  his  disciples  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  and 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  being  sound  and  orthodox)  we  are 
authorized  to  infer  that  the  same  doctrine  which  he  received 
from  Clement  he  himself  held  and  transmitted  to  his  followers, 
he  could  have  said  nothing  more  injurious  to  the  cause  of 
Origen ;  for  no  one  of  the  three  held  the  Trinity  in  its  purity 
and  integrity.  For  Clement  so  distinguished  between  the 
substance  of  the  Father  and  that  of  the  Son  as  to  make  the 
latter  inferior  ;  and  Dionysius  said  the  Son  was  a  creation 
(work)  of  the  Father,  and  dissimilar  to  him ;  and  spake  un- 
becomingly of  the  Spirit,  as  we  are  told  by  Basil,  who  also 
censures  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  for  teaching  plainly  that  the 
Son  was  created."  "  Finally,"  he  says,  "  it  is  evident,  that 
not  indeed  in  the  days  of  Basil,  and  even  in  times  more 
recent,  did  the  Catholics  dare  openly  profess  the  divinity  of 
the  Spirit."* 

We  might  multiply  quotations  of  a  similar  import  from  mod- 
ern Trinitarian  writers,  whom  it  will  not  do  to  charge  with 
ignorance  of  Christian  antiquity.  The  late  Professor  Stuart 
made  some  statements  on  the  subject,  which,  coming  from 
such  a  source,  are  worthy  of  notice.  They  occur  in  the  arti- 
cles on  Schleiermacher,  in  the  numbers  of  the  "  Biblical  Re- 
pository and  Quarterly  Observer "  for  April  and  July,  1835. 
They  are  at  variance  with  the  professor's  former  statements 
relating  to  the  opinions  of  the  early  Fathers.  He  thinks  them 
more  accurate,  as  they  are  the  result  of  a  more  intimate  ac- 
quaintance with  the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  The  views  of 
the  Nicene  Fathers,  he  tells  us,  "  if  he  understands  them,"  do 
"really  and  effectually  interfere  with  the  true  equality,  in 
substance,  power,  and  glory,  of  the  three  persons,  or  distinc- 
tions, in  the  Godhead."  The  Son  and  Spirit,  he  says,  accord- 
ing to  them,  are  derived  beings ;  and  derivation  implies  inferi- 
ority. "A  derived  God,"  he  says,  "  cannot  be  a  self-existent 
God."  The  numerical  identity  of  the  Father  and  Son,  he 
affirms,  was  not  a  doctrine  of  the  ancient  Fathers.  "  Justin," 
he  observes,  "  says  in  so  many  words  that  the  Logos  (Son)  is 

*  Huet.  Orig.,  lib.  ii.  c.  ii. ;  qusest.  2,  §  10. 
99 


338  THE  apostles'  creed. 

different  from  the  Father,  and  another  in  number.''''  In  regard 
to  the  unity  and  distinction  of  the  Father  and  Son,  lie  says, 
the  "zeal  of  Origen  led  him  to  a  theory  in  no  important  re- 
spect better  than  that  of  Arius."  "  Such  was  the  case,  too, 
with  Eusebius  the  historian  ";  and  "  Dionysius  names  the  Son 
a  creation  and  ivork  of  the  Father."  The  Council  of  Nice,  he 
says,  according  to  Athanasius,  "  did  not  mean  to  assert  the 
numerical  unity  of  the  Godhead ";  and  much  more  to  the 
same  purpose.  The  result  is,  that  the  Fathers  generally, 
before  and  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  asserted  the  Son  to  be 
inferior  to  the  Father,  and  numerically  a  being  different  from 
him. 

In  regard  to  Origen,  the  great  Alexandrian  teacher,  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  says,  "Son  and  Spirit,  according  to  him,  have 
their  origin  as  hypostases  in  the  free  will  of  the  Father :  they 
are  subordinate  to  him,  though  they  are  the  exact  reflection 
of  his  glory.  The  unity  of  the  Godhead  is  a  unity  of  will,  a 
harmony  of  design  and  operation ;  not  a  numerical  or  substan- 
tial unity,  against  which  he  strongly  protests.  '  The  Father,' 
says  he,  '  is  the  ground-cause  or  original  source  of  all.  Infe- 
rior to  the  Father  is  the  Son,  who  operates  merely  on  rational 
beings  ;  for  he  is  second  to  the  Father.  Still  more  inferior  is 
the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  influence  is  limited  to  the  Church. 
The  power  of  the  Father,  then,  is  greater  than  the  power  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Spirit ;  the  power  of  the  Son  is  greater 
than  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and,  lastly,  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  greater  than  that  of  all  other  beings.'  " 

So  says  Professor  Stuart.  He  goes  at  large  into  an  exami- 
nation of  the  opinions  of  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers,  and  the 
views  at  which  he  arrives,  expressed  in  his  clear  and  strong 
style,  fully  sustain  us  in  the  statements  made  in  the  preceding 
pages.  Men  far  inferior  to  Professor  Stuart  in  vigor  of  intel- 
lect and  patristic  learning  may  hazard  the  assertion,  that  the 
ante-Nicene  Fathers  and  the  early  Church  generally  were 
Trinitarian  in  the  present  sense  of  the  term.  It  is  a  hardy 
assertion,  opposed  to  evidence  written,  as  with  a  sunbeam,  on 
every  page  of  Christian  antiquity. 

Several  of  the  Fathers  themselves  roundly  tax  the  more 
ancient  Fathers  with  unsoundness  on  the  subject  of  the  Trin- 


COUNCILS   EEJECTING    THE   NICENE    FAITH.  339 

Ity.  Origen  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  a  witness  for  the 
Trinity.  We  have  seen  what  Huet  and  Professor  Stuart 
thought  of  him.  Jerome  thought  no  better  ;  for  he  accuses 
him  of  asserting  that  the  Son  was  "not  begotten,  but  made."* 
Basil  the  Great  is  quoted  and  extolled.  But  what  was  Basil's 
opinion  of  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers  ?  What  he  says  of  Dio- 
nysiiis  and  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  —  authorities  sometimes 
used  by  Trinitarians  —  has  been  just  quoted.  Of  Dionysius 
he  says  further,  that  he  "  sowed  the  seeds  of  the  Anomoean 
[Arian]  impiety ;  for  he  not  only  made  a  diversity  of  persons 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  but  a  difference  of  essence, 
taking  away  their  con  substantiality."  The  same  Basil  admits 
that  the  old  Fathers  were  "  silent "  on  the  question  of  the 
Spirit ;  and  says,  that  they  who  acknowledged  its  divinity,  in 
his  day,  were  "  condemned  as  introducing  novel  dogmas  on 
the  subject."  Rufinus  accuses  Clement  of  Alexandria  of  call- 
ing the  Son  a  "  creature  ";  and  Dionysius,  he  says,  "  in  his 
zeal  against  Sabellianism,  fell  into  Arianism." 

Such  (and  we  might  add  to  the  number)  are  some  of  the 
authorities  among  the  Fatliers.  Were  these  Fathers  "  igno- 
rant of  Christian  antiquity  "  ?  They  were  themselves  ancient, 
"  primitive,"  according  to  the  standard  of  antiquity  sometimes 
adopted.  Have  they,  then,  borne  false  witness  of  each  othei 
and  of  themselves  ?  This  supposition  is  hardly  consistent  with 
the  title  to  exalted  veneration  so  freely  accorded  to  them.f 

Let  the  appeal  be  made  to  councils.  The  Council  held 
at  Antioch,  a.  d.  341,  expressly  declared  against  the  Nicene 
faith;  rejected  the  term  "consubstantial  ";  and  in  favor  of 
their  own  views,  appealed  to  the  testimony  of  antiquity.  J  The 
term  was  rejected  also  from  the  creed  of  the  third  Council  of 
Sirmium,  which,  says  Du  Pin,  is  Arian,  but  which   Hosius. 

*  Epist.  59,  al.  94,  ad  Avitum. 

t  It  is  amusing  to  find  one  quoting  Eusebius  the  historian  as  an  undoubted 
Trinitarian,  and  quoting,  too,  from  his  letter  to  his  people  from  Nice;  which, 
if  it  is  to  be  trusted  (and  it  is  confirmed  in  the  main  by  the  testimony  of  Ath- 
masius),  shows  that  neither  Eusebius  nor  the  council  were  Orthodox  in  the 
modern  sense  of  tlie  term.  Eusebius  was  in  no  good  repute  for  orthodoxy 
among  the  Fathers.  "An  Arian,"  says  Athanasius ;  the  "  prince  of  Arians,' 
exclaims  Jerome ;   "  an  Arian,  and  worse  than  an  Arian,"  adds  Nicephorus. 

%  Soc,  lib.  ii.  c.  10 ;  Soz.,  lib.  iii.  c.  5. 


340  THE   APOSTLES'    CREED. 

long  one  of  the  pillars  of  the  Nicene  faith,  in  an  evil  hour,  as 
the  Orthodox  will  have  it,  signed.  Still  further,  it  was  anath- 
ematized by  the  Council  of  Philippopolis  ;  condemned  by  that  of 
Antioch,  holden  soon  after ;  by  the  fifth  of  Sirniium  ;  by  those 
of  Seleucia  and  Ariminura  (Rimini),  and  others.  In  regard 
to  the  Council  of  Ariminum,  we  are  told,  that,  notwithstanding 
the  efforts  of  the  Arians,  the  "  influence  of  the  emperor,  and 
the  apprehension  of  banishment  and  persecution,"  the  four 
hundred  bishops  assembled  there  "  determined  to  adhere  to 
the  Nicene  Confession,  and  solemnly  republished  it  as  the 
symbol  of  the  Catholic  faith."  And  yet,  all  this  notwithstand- 
ing, it  is  quite  certain  that  these  bishops  generally,  before  the 
council  broke  up,  did  recede  from  the  determination,  violate 
their  constancy,  and  sign  a  creed  qf  a  very  different  import ; 
being  one  recently  drawn  up  at  Sirmium,  in  opposition  to  the 
Nicene  symbol.  Du  Pin  says  that  "  all  the  bishops  signed  "; 
and  thus,  says  he,  "  ended  this  council,  whose  beginning  was 
glorious  ;  and  end,  deplorable."  * 

And  yet  the  opponents  of  the  Trinity  are  asked  to  "  point 
out  only  one  council  which  adopted  their  sentiments."  That 
the  Council  of  Rimini  before  its  close,  and  others  just  named, 
and  more  we  might  mention,  rejected  the  Athanasian  Trinity, 
we  want  no  better  evidence  than  the  fact,  that  they  openly 
declared  against  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  uniformly  condemned 
and  rejected  from  their  symbols  the  term  "  consubstantial," 
which  had  been  from  the  first  exceedingly  obnoxious  to  the 
Arians,  but  which  the  Orthodox  made  the  very  watchword  of 
their  party.  True,  the  Arians  believed  in  a  sort  of  Trinity ; 
and  so  do  we  :  but  not  a  Trinity  in  Unity ;  nor  did  they.  We 
believe  in  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  so 
did  they :  but  we  do  not  believe  that  these  three  are  numeri- 
cally one  or  equal ;  nor  did  they  or  any  of  the  ante-Nicene 
Fathers.  Though  these  Fathers  held  language  respecting  the 
Father  and  the  Son  of  which  the  Arians  disapproved,  they 
stopped  short,  as  we  have  before  said,  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
numerical  identity  of  the   Father,   the   Son,   and  the   Spirit. 

*  Hist,  of  Eccles.  Writers,  vol.  ii.  p.  264.  To  the  time  of  tlie  above-men- 
tioned council,  Jerome  refers,  when  he  says,  "  The  whole  workl  groaned  to 
find  itself  Arian." 


THE    ATHANASIAN    CREED.  341 

We  challenge  any  one  to  produce  a  single  writer  of  any  note, 
during  the  first  three  ages,  who  held  this  doctrine  in  the  mod- 
ern sense. 

We  beg  leave,  however,  to  say,  that  we  do  not  consider 
the  Athanasian  Creed  as  evidence  of  the  faith  of  primitive 
antiquity,  exactly.  It  is  sometimes  quoted  as  a  genuine  relic 
of  antiquity,  and  as  really  a  production  of  Athanasius  himself. 
It  is  roundly  asserted  tliat  it  was  "published  at  Rome,  a.  d. 
340"!  Of  this  there  is  not  the  least  shadow  of  proof;  the 
statements  of  Baronius,  and  some  other  Romish  writers  of  the 
same  stamp,  being  wholly  unsupported.  Neither  Athanasius, 
nor  any  writer  of  his  own  or  of  the  next  century,  ever  alludes 
to  it  in  any  of  their  writings  now  extant.  No  mention  of  it 
occurs  of  a  date  prior  to  the  sixth  centuiy,  and  some  of  the 
writings  in  which  we  find  the  earliest  allusions  to  it  are  of 
doubtful  genuineness.  In  regard  to  Athanasius,  says  Du  Pin, 
"  all  the  world  agrees  't  was  none  of  his,  but  some  authors  that 
liv'd  a  longtime  after  him.  ...  'T  is  certain  that 't  was  compos'd 
after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,"  a.  d.  451.*  "That  which 
is  called  the  Creed  of  Athanasius,"  says  Bishop  Tomline, 
"  was  certainly  not  written  by  that  Father.  ...  It  was  never 
heard  of  till  the  sixth  century,  above  a  hundred  years  after  the 
death  of  Athanasius.  ...  It  cannot  now  be  ascertained  who 
was  its  real  author:  ...  it  had  never  the  sanction  of  any 
council."!  It  was  "  the  composition,"  says  Dr.  Samuel 
Clarke,  "  of  an  uncertain  obscure  author,  written  (not  cer- 
tainly known  whether)  in  Greek  or  Latin,  in  one  of  the  dark- 
est and  most  ignorant  ages  of  the  Church."  \  Bishop  Pear- 
son does  not  find  it  referred  to  before  about  the  year  600. § 
Hagenbach  assigns  the  seventh  century  as  the  time  of  its  gen- 
eral adoption. II  It  has  beeii  ascribed  to  various  authors;  to 
Vigilius  of  Tapsus,  in  Africa,  towards  the  close  of  the  fifth 
century ;  to  Vincentius  a  monk  of  Lerins,  also  in  the  fifth 
century ;  to  a  Gallican  bishop  of  the  sixth  century ;  by  Dr. 
Waterland  to  Hilary  of  Aries,   in  the  fifth   century ;    while 

*  Hist.  Eccles.   Writers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  35,  36,  ed.  Lond.,  1693. 

t  Elements  of  Christian  Theology,  vol.  ii.  p.  219. 

X  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  p.  447,  ed.  Lond.,  1712. 

§  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  art.  v. 

y  "Text-Book,  etc.,  Second  Period,  §  97. 


342  THE  apostles'  creed. 

Gieseler  supposes  that  it  originated  in  Spain,  whence  it  was 
carried  into  France.  Dr.  Stanley,  in  his  history  of  the  East- 
em  Church,  speaks  of  the  creed  as  a  "hymn" — the  "ancient 
hymn,  '  Quicumque  vult.'  "  He  says,  "  the  learned  world  is 
now  aware  that  it  is  of  French  or  Spanish  origin."  "  I  wish," 
says  Archbishop  Tillotson,  "  we  were  well  rid  of  it." 


HYMNOLOGY   OF   THE  ANCIENT   CHURCH. 


CHAPTER    I. 

The  Htmnology  of  the  Ancient  Church  not  Trinitarian.  —  Sing- 
ing AMONG  the  Early  Christians. — First  Regular  Choir.  —  Fla- 
vian OF  Antioch. — Ambrosk.  —  Gregory.  —  Hymns  of  the  Primi- 
tive Church  Lost.  —  Earliest  Writers  of  Hymns. —  Bardesanes. 
—  Harmonius.  —  Ephrem.  —  Attempt  of  Paul  of  Samosata  to  re- 
store THE  Old  Music  and  Hymns. 

The  hymnology  of  the  early  Church  was  clearly  not  Trini- 
tarian. But,  before  we  proceed  to  the  subject  of  hymns,  we 
must  say  a  few  words  on  singing.  Frequent  notices  of  singing, 
as  forming  part  of  the  worship  of  the  ancient  Christians,  occur 
in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers ;  but  the  manner  of  conducting 
it  is  wholly  matter  of  conjecture  and  inference.  It  is  certain 
there  could  have  been  little  art  or  refinement  in  the  old  sing- 
ing. That  musical  taste  should  have  been  much  cultivated 
among  the  early  believers,  who  had  no  temples  or  churches ; 
who  assembled  for  worship  in  private  dwellings,  and,  in  times 
of  persecution,  in  caverns,  on  shipboard,  and  in  whatever 
secure  and  sequestered  place  could  be  found,  and  often  in  the 
night,  — would  be  an  unnatural  supposition.*    No  doubt,  their 

*  The  time  of  the  erection  of  tlie  first  Christian  churches  is  unknown. 
From  Minutius  Felix,  who  wrote  early  in  the  third  century,  it  appears  that 
Christians  in  his  time  were  reproaclied  with  having  "  neither  temples  nor 
altars  nor  images " ;  and  they  confessed  the  fact.  At  this  time,  therefore, 
Christian  churches  could  not  have  been  very  common.  Yet  there  is  reason 
to  believe  that  tliey  began  to  be  reared  as  early,  at  least,  as  the  end  of  the 
second  century.  If  we  could  credit  the  Chronicle  of  Edessa,  a  Christian 
church  was  destroyed  in  that  place  by  an  inundation,  a.  d.  202.  This  is  the 
first  of  which  we  have  any  express  mention.  Tertullian,  who  wrote  about 
the  same  period,  seems  to  allude  to  places  set  apart  for  Christian  worship  {De 
Idol.,  c.l  \  De  Corona  Mil,  c.  3).  Tillemont  (Hist.  Eccles.,  t.  iii.  p.  120,  ed. 
Brux.  1732)  finds  the  first  mention  of  them,  as  known  to  the  Heathen,  in  th« 


344  ANCIENT   HYMNOLOGY. 

music,  like  the  rest  of  their  worship,  was  simple  and  inartifi- 
cial enough  ;  but  it  did  not  the  less  stir  the  soul  for  this  reason. 
The  popular  airs  which  become  incorporated  with  the  music 
of  a  people  are  always  simple,  and  are  the  more  affecting  for 
being  so.  They  are  addressed  to  the  feelings  rather  than  to 
the  intellect ;  and  the  feelings  are  always  simple.  In  devo- 
tion, the  heart  leads  ;  and  it  requires  no  intricate  machinery 
to  put  it  in  motion.  Reasoning  may  be  cold  and  artificial ; 
but  the  charactei'istics  of  devotion  are  warmth  and  simplicity : 
and,  of  these  qualities,  the  ancient  singing,  we  may  suppose, 
like  much  of  that  which  stirred  the  heart  of  Germany  in  the 
early  days  of  the  Reformation  under  Luther,  and  was  again 
revived  by  Wesley  and  his  coadjutors,  largely  partook.  It 
touched  the  chord  of  devotion.  There  was  in  it  the  religious 
element ;  and  to  such  music,  we  may  add,  —  simple,  earnest, 
devout ;  having  some  definite  expression,  some  power  of  con- 
centrating the  thoughts  and  feelings,  —  the  heart  of  man,  as 
man,  will  be  ever  faithful. 

The  first  regular  choir  of  singers  of  which  we  have  any 
distinct  account  is  that  of  Antioch,  some  fifty  years  after  the 
Council  of  Nice.  Flavian  and  Diodorus  were  priests  of  An- 
tioch, both  monks.  The  latter  was  at  the  head  of  the  monas- 
tic school  in  that  place,  and  had  Chrysostom  for  his  pupil. 
The  former  became  Bishop  of  Antioch  in  the  year  380. 
Flavian  generally  has  the  credit  of  introducing  the  antiphonal 
or  responsive  singing  into  the  church  there,  though  Theodoret 
associates  Diodorus  with  him.  They  were  the  first,  Theodo- 
ret says,  who  "  divided  the  choir,  and  taught  them  to  sing  the 

time  of  Maximin,  a.  d.  235.  During  the  persecution  under  him,  Origen  says, 
they  were  burned.  It  would  seem  that  they  began  to  be  built  in  considerable 
numbers  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  Near  its  close,  during  the 
period  which  immediately  ^'receded  the  persecution  under  Diocletian,  a.  d. 
303,  Christians  long  enjoyed  a  state  of  palmy  prosperity ;  and  then  edifices  for 
worship  began  to  rise,  marked  by  a  splendor  before  unknown.  "  Christians," 
says  Eusebius  (lib.  viii.  c.  1),  "were  no  longer  content  with  the  old  edifices, 
but  erected  spacious  churches,  from  the  very  foundation,  throughout  all  the 
cities."  The  "  old  edifices  "  here  spoken  of,  no  doubt,  were  the  first  churches 
of  the  Christians;  which,  having  stood  fifty  years  or  a  little  more,  —  about 
as  long  as  the  first  humble  edifices  of  worship  erected  in  this  country  by  our 
Puritan  Fathers,  —  and  being  found  dilapidated,  or  insufficient  to  accommo- 
;late  the  number  of  worshippers,  or  too  mean  to  satisfy  a  growing  taste  for 
.uxury  and  elegance,  now  yielded  to  more  magnificent  structures. 


SINGING   AMONG   THE   ANCIENT   CHRISTIANS.  345 

Psalms  of  David  responsively.  This  custom,"  he  adds,  "  which 
they  thus  originated  in  Antioch,  spread  everywhere,  even  to 
the  very  ends  of  the  habitable  world."  * 

The  primitive  mode  of  singing  among  Christians  is  supposed 
to  have  been  congregational  ;  the  whole  assembly  (men,  wo- 
men, and  children)  uniting  as  with  one  voice.  This  mode  was 
undoubtedly  practised  ;  and,  being  less  artificial  than  the  other, 
was  probably  the  mode  most  in  use  among  the  early  Christians. 
That  the  other  mode  did  not  originate  with  Flavian  and 
Diodorus,  however,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  it  was  in  use 
among  the  Jews.  From  them  it  passed  into  the  Christian 
Church  through  the  Jewish  converts,  and  was  probably  never 
wholly  laid  aside.  In  fact,  the  expression  employed  by  Pliny, 
in  his  letter  to  Trajan,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century, 
shows  that  the  hymns  to  which  he  refers  were  sung  by  alternate 
voices.  It  was  the  changes  and  improvements  introduced  by 
Flavian  and  Diodorus,  who  possessed  a  regular  choir,  which 
they  had  trained  to  the  use  of  this  mode,  however,  which 
brought  it  into  notice,  and  contributed  to  give  it  currency  in 
the  Church. 

The  story  of  Socrates  (that  old  Ignatius  borrowed  the  idea 
of  the  alternate  or  responsive  singing  from  a  vision  of  angels 
which  was  accorded  him,  and  thence  introduced  it  into  his 
church,  from  which  "  it  was  transmitted  by  tradition  to  all  the 
other  churches ")  would  not  be  worth  noticing,  were  it  not 
that  it  gives  intimation  of  what  we  have  just  said,  —  that  this 
mode  of  singing  did  not  originate  with  Flavian. f  To  this -we 
may  add,  that  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  who  was  a  disci})le  of 
Diodorus,  says  that  he  and  Flavian  only  translated  into  Greek 
a  service  wdiich  had  heretofore  been  performed  in  Syriac. 

Ambrose,  who  became  Bishop  of  Milan,  a.  d.  374,  intro- 
duced the  antiphonic  or  responsive  singing  into  the  West.  He 
had  it,  as  Augustine,  his  friend  and  admirer,  says,  J  from  the 
East ;  that  is,  from  Antioch.  He  adopted  it,  says  the  same 
writer,  for  the  relief  and  refreshment  it  would  afford  the  peo- 
ple, who  might  thus  be  prevented  from  languishing  and  con- 
suming away  in  a  tedious  sorrow.  The  Ambrosian  chant 
owed  its  origin  to  him. 

*  Hist.,  ii.  24.  t  Hist,  vi.  8. 

X  Conf.,  lib.  ix.  cc.  6,  7.     See  also  Paulinus's  Life  of  Ambrose. 


346  ANCIENT    HYMNOLOGY. 

What  improvements,  if  any,  were  introduced  after  the  time 
of  Ambrose,  and  before  the  period  of  Gregory  the  Great,  or 
how  the  singing  in  the  churches  was  conducted  in  the  interval, 
history  does  not  inform  us ;  at  least,  we  have  been  able  to 
glean  nothing  worth  relating  on  the  subject.*  Gregory  the 
Great,  the  first  pope  of  the  name,  was  consecrated  to  the  office 
of  Supreme  Pontiff,  A.  D.  590,  after  having  in  vain  attempted 
to  shun  the  honor ;  to  effect  which,  he  had  caused  himself  to 
be  conveyed  out  of  the  city  in  a  basket,  and  had  concealed 
himself  in  a  cave.  After  his  elevation,  however,  though,  as  it 
appears,  of  an  infirm  constitution,  he  devoted  himself  to  the 
duties  of  his  office  with  great  assiduity.  Among  other  enter- 
prises, he  undertook  to  reform  the  music  of  his  church.  "Ec- 
clesiastical writers,"  observes  Dr.  Burney,  "  seem  unanimous 
in  allowing,"  that  "  he  collected  the  musical  .fragments  of  such 
ancient  hymns  and  psalms  as  the  first  Fathers  of  the  Church 
had  approved  and  recommended  to  the  primitive  Christians  ; 
and  that  he  selected,  methodized,  and  arranged  them  in  the 
order  which  was  long  continued  at  Rome,  and  soon  adopted  by 
the  chief  jDart  of  the  Western  Church."  f  We  suppose  he  took 
whatever  had  been  in  use  among  Christians  of  former  ages, 
which  appeared  suited  to  his  purpose,  without  probably  troub- 
ling himself  to  inquire  by  whose  authority  it  had  been  intro- 
duced. He  also  reformed  the  chant,  which,  since  the  time  of 
Ambrose,  had  undergone  very  little  alteration  ;  and  introduced 
what  has  since  been  known  as  the  Gregorian,  or  plain  chant. 
He  was  opposed  to  the  lively  airs  of  the  Pagan  music,  which 
had  come  into  the  Church  along  with  the  lyric  hymns ;  and 
attempted  to  substitute  something  more  grave  in  its  place. 
Undoubtedly  he  laid  the  foundation  for  an  improved  style  ;  and 

*  The  manner  of  conducting  the  singing  appears  to  have  varied  in  different 
churches,  and  was  sometimes  made  occasion  of  controversy.  Basil,  Bishop 
of  Cajsarea  in  Cappadocia  tlie  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  was  accused 
of  innovating  by  causing  the  prayers  of  tlie  Church  to  be  sung.  He  said,  in 
reply,  that  he  only  adhered  to  the  ancient  custom  of  the  Church,  which  pre- 
vailed in  Egypt,  Libya,  Phoenicia,  Palestine,  and  Syria.  In  regard  to  the 
prayers,  it  would  not  seem,  from  his  own  account,  that  he  liad  the  whole 
Bung ;  but  he  mixed  up  the  responsive  singing  with  the  prayers  in  a  manner 
not  accordant  with  the  simplicity  of  tlie  primitive  worship. 

t  History  of  Music,  vol.  ii.  p.  15.  See  also  Maimbourg's  account,  quoted  by 
Sir  John  Hawkins,  History  of  Music,  b.  iii.  c.  8 ;  and  Bayle,  art.  "  Gregory." 


GREGORY.  —  THE   OLDEST    HYMNS.  347 

deserves  to  be  considered  as  a  benefactor  to  sacred  music, 
however  barbarous  some  of  his  changes  may  have  been  pro- 
nounced at  the  time  or  since.  If  he  simplified  the  music  of  the 
Church  in  some  respects,  however,  in  others  he  was  accused  of 
encumbering  it.  Some  of  his  friends  were  disgusted  with  the 
new  forms  he  adopted,  particularly  his  imitation  of  the  customs 
of  the  church  of  Constantinople.  They  disliked  exceedingly 
his  frequent  introduction  of  "  hallelujahs,"  with  various  ascrip- 
tions, invocations,  and  phrases,  to  which  their  ears  had  been 
heretofore  unaccustomed ;  the  repetition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
and  other  innovations,  as  they  termed  them.  In  favor  of  most 
of  his  changes,  he  contrived  to  allege  some  pretence  of  antiquity, 
particularly  the  repetition  of  "  hallelujahs,"  which,  he  says, 
Jerome  took  from  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  and  brought  to 
Rome  in  the  time  of  Pope  Damasus,  in  the  fourth  century. 

It  is  asserted  on  the  authority  of  John,  a  deacon  of  Rome, 
who  wrote  his  Life,  that  the  original  Antiphonarium,  or  Choral 
Book,  of  Gregory,  was  in  existence  in  his  time,  near  three 
hundred  years  after  Gregory's  death  ;  as  also  the  bed  on  which 
the  old  invalid  pope  lay,  and  the  whip  "  wherewith  he  threat- 
ened the  young  clerks  and  the  singing-boys,  when  they  were 
out,  or  failed  in  the  notes  "  :  for  he  instituted  a  school  for  the 
education  of  his  choir,  and,  it  seems,  did  not  consider  it  as 
derogating  from  the  dignity  of  his  office  to  superintend  it  in 
person. 

But  what  account  is  to  be  given  of  the  old  hymns  and  their 
writers  ?  The  hymns  of  the  ancient  Church,  properly  so  called, 
have  not  been  preserved.  We  sometimes  hear  of  the  hymns 
of  the  "  primitive  Church  ";  but  no  such  hymns  are  now  known 
to  be  extant.  The  term  "  primitive,"  as  applied  to  hymns,  is 
as  inappropriate  as  when  applied  to  the  Apostles'  Creed.  The 
psalmody  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  compositions  founded  upon 
it,  were  used ;  for  which  the  songs  of  Zacharias,  Mary,  and 
Simeon,  as  preserved  in  Luke's  Gospel,  furnished  a  precedent. 
Some  sublime  and  lyric  expressions  from  the  New  Testament 
might  very  naturally  enter  into  these  compositions.  In  addition 
to  these,  the  old  believers  had  what  were  called  "  Hymns  of 
the  Brethren,"  because  composed  by  them  ;  but  these  latter 
have  long  since  perished.     We  find  no  mention  of  any  writer 


348  ANCIENT    HYMNOLOGY. 

of  hymns,  by  name,  till  near  the  expiration  of  the  second 
century  from  the  birth  of  Christ ;  and  have  no  remains  of  the 
hymns,  strictly  so  called,  used  during  that  period  ;  nor  do  we 
know  anything  of  their  nature,  except  what  Pliny,  referring 
to  his  own  time,  tells  us,  in  his  well-known  letter  to  Trajan, — 
that  they  were  sung  in  honor  of  Christ.  Origen,  too,  says 
that  Christians  were  accustomed  to  sing  hymns  to  God  and  to 
his  only  Son,  as  the  Pagans  to  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars ;  and 
others  have  expressed  themselves  in  similar  general  terms. 
The  author  of  a  work  against  the  heresy  of  Artemon,  quoted 
by  Eusebius,  though  his  name  was  unknown  to  the  historian, 
appeals  to  the  "  Psalms  and  Hymns  of  the  Brethren,  written, 
at  the  beginning,  by  the  faithful,"  and  "  setting  forth  the 
praises  of  Christ,  the  Word  of  God,  ascribing  divinity  to  him 
(^eoAoyowres),"  *  but  not  the  highest  divinity.  This  the  word 
or  phrase  does  not  imply  ;  nor  does  the  belief  of  Christians  of 
the  time  and  their  usages  of  speech  justify  such  an  interpre- 
tation of  it.f  The  work  just  referred  to  is  now  attributed 
to  Hippolytus.  The  writers  of  the  hymns,  however,  are  not 
named  by  him  ;  and  no  fragment  of  the  hymns  is  left  us. 

The  statements  above  given,  relating  to  the  loss  of  the 
hymns,  properly  so  called,  of  the  primitive  Church,  are  con- 
firmed by  the  researches  of  the  learned  Bunsen,  the  results  of 
which  have  been  recently  published.  He  gives  three  specimens 
of  what  he  calls  "  genuine  relics  of  ancient  congregational  or 
domestic  hymnology." 

"  Glory  be  to  God  on  high ; 
And  on  earth,  peace,"  &c.,  — 

is  one  of  them  ;  called  by  Bunsen  "  the  Hymn  of  Thanksgiv- 
ing, or  the  Morning  Hymn  of  the  Early  Church  ";  the  same, 
he  thinks,  alluded  to  by  Pliny.  It  is  lyric  in  its  structure, 
though  without  any  trace  of  metre.  Bunsen  gives  it  in  what 
he  considers  its  ancient  form,  which  is  much  briefer  and  simpler 
than  its  present.  The  time  of  its  composition  is  unknown, 
though  Bunsen  places  it  in  its  simpler  form  among  the  ante- 

*  Euseb.  Hist,  v.  28. 

t  Pliny's  phrase  (quasi  Deo)  is  sometimes  rendered,  "  as  to  God."  This 
is  unauthorized.  The  Latin  does  not  imply  so  much ;  nor  would  a  Roman 
have  so  understood  it.  The  Earl  of  Orrery  translates  it  correctly,  "  as  to  a 
God."  —  Letters  of  Pliny  the  Younger,  x.  97,  Lond.  1761. 


EARLIEST   WEITERS  OF   HYMNS.  349 

Nicene  documents.  The  other  two  are  made  up  almost  ex- 
clusivelj  of  verses  from  the  Psalms ;  or,  as  Bunsen  expresses 
it,  are  "  a  cento  of  verses  and  hemistichs  of  psalms."  They 
are  what  are  called  morning  and  evening  "  Psalmodic  Hymns," 
though  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  give  the  song  of  Simeon 
as  an  evening  hymn.  These,  Bunsen  says,  "  are  all  the  au- 
thentic and  genuine  remains  we  possess  of  the  ante-Nicene 
psalmody  and  hymnology  of  Christendom,  as  far  as  it  adopted 
the  Hebrew  form."  "But  we  have,"  he  says,  "at  least,  one 
composition  of  Hellenic  source,"  sometimes  called  the  "  Hymn 
of  the  Kindling  of  the  Lamp."  This  is  old,  no  doubt  ;  but 
the  date  of  its  composition  cannot  be  assigned.  Bunsen  gives 
it  as  the  "  Evening  Hymn  of  the  Greek  Christians."  It  begins, 
"  Serene  Light  of  holy  glory."  Such  is  the  result  of  Bunsen'.s 
antiquarian  researches  on  this  subject.* 

The  earliest  writers  of  hymns,  whose  names  ai-e  preserved, 
belonged  to  the  Syrian  Church.  The  first  of  any  note  is 
Bardesanes,  the  heresiarch  ;  a  subtle,  learned,  and  eloquent 
writer,  near  the  end  of  the  second  century.  He  is  said,  on 
the  authority  of  Ephrem  the  Syrian,  to  have  written  one 
hundred  and  fifty  psalms  or  hymns,  in  elegant  verse,  in  imita- 
tion of  the  Psalms  of  David  ;  which  contributed  greatly  to  the 
diffusion  of  his  errors.  He  corrupted  the  faith  of  the  young  in 
particular,  says  Ephrem,  by  the  "  sweetness  and  beauty  of  his 
verses."  Harmonius,  his  son,  inherited  his  father's  genius  for 
poetry  ;  and,  after  his  example,  composed  a  great  number  of 
hymns  and  odes  adapted  to  the  lyre,  by  which  he  charmed  .the 
ears  of  the  people.  From  these  sources,  the  Syrians  eagerly 
drank  in  the  poison  of  heresy.  Unfortunately,  however,  the 
hymns  are  lost ;  and  we  have  no  means,  therefore,  of  ascer- 
taining how  far  the  praises  bestowed  on  them  were  deserved.f 
The  infusion  of  heresy  they  contained,  it  appears,  caused  them 
to  be  proscribed ;  and,  no  doubt,  hastened  their  destruction. 
They  must  have  been  in  use,  however,  among  the  Syrians,  for 
a  century,  or  a  century  and  a  half ;  for  they  retained  their 

*  Analecta  Ante-Niccena,  vol.  iii.  pp.  86-89  ;  Christianity  and  Mankind,vol.YV. 
See  also  Hippolytus  and  his  Age,  vol.  ii.  pp.  50-52,  and  98-102. 

t  See  Sozomen,  lib.  iii.  c.  16 ;  Beausobre,  Hist.  deManichee  et  du  Manicheisme, 
t.  ii.  p.  140 ;  also  Bardesanes  Gnosticus  Sjjrorum  Primus  Hymnologus,  by  Hahn, 
Lips.  1819. 


350  ANCIENT   HYMNOLOGY. 

popularity  in  the  time  of  Ephrem  the  Syrian,  above  alluded  to, 
who  flourished  about  A.  d.  370,  and  whose  writings  were  in 
such  esteem,  says  Jerome,  tliat  they  were  sometimes  read  in 
the  churches  after  the  Scriptures. 

Ephrem  wrote  hymns  and  odes  by  thousands.  He  diligently 
studied  the  poetical  productions  of  Bardesanes  and  Harmonius, 
who  were  his  models,  and  whose  sweetness  he  attempted  to 
emulate,  in  the  hope  of  inducing  his  countrymen  to  lay  aside 
those  pernicious  compositions,  and  sing  his  own  more  orthodox 
lays.*  Many  of  his  hymns  were,  of  necessity,  of  a  controver- 
sial character.  His  design  was  to  set  the  Eastern  world  right, 
on  certain  points  of  doctrine,  in  regard  to  which  the  above- 
named  writers  had  led  it  astray.  He  succeeded  in  excluding 
their  hymns,  and  causing  his  own  to  be  substituted  in  their 
place.  Their  beauty  was  much  vaunted  by  the  Syrians ;  and 
they  are  said  to  be  used  in  their  churches  to  the  present  day. 
Multitudes  of  his  hymns,  or  hymns  attributed  to  him,  on  vari- 
ous incidents  in  our  Saviour's  histoiy  and  life,  his  passion, 
resurrection,  and  ascension,  on  the  dead,  and  in  celebration  of 
the  martyrs,  and  on  other  subjects,  are  still  preserved  among 
his  works.  But  whatever  sweetness  they  possessed,  or  may 
possess,  to  the  Syrian  ear,  modern  lovers  of  poetry  among  us, 
we  fear,  will  find  in  them  few  charms.  Their  sweetness,  like 
some  subtile  perfume,  seems  to  have  evaporated  with  time.f 

The  connection  of  Ephrem  with  Bardesanes  has  led  us  to 
anticipate  a  little.  Returning  to  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  it  is  only  necessary  to  mention  a  hymn  ])rinted  with 
the  writings  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  by  some  attrib- 
uted to  him.  It  is  of  uncertain  authorship,  however ;  and  is 
a  hymn  of  a  very  ordinary  character.  $     Beryllus,  bishop  of 

*  Soz.,  iii.  16 ;  Tlieod.,  iv,  29.  See  also  Asseman.  Biblloth.  Orient.,  t.  i. 
art.  "  Eplirem,"  who  was  called  the  Prophet  of  the  Sj-rians,  and  Harp  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

t  A  selection  of  them  has  recently  been  published  in  Germany,  with  a 
glossary  for  the  use  of  students,  in  Syriac,  under  the  following  title  :  "  Chres- 
tomathia  S^Tiaca,  sive  S.  Ephr^mi  Carmina  Selecta.  Edidcruiit  Notis  criticis 
philologicis  historicis  et  Glossario  locupletissimo  illustraverunt  Augustus  Hahn 
<3t  Fr.  Ludovicus  SietTert."     Lipsise,  1825. 

X  See  Fabricius,  Biblloth.  Grcec,  lib.  v.  c.  1.  Fabricius  gives  two  liymns, 
reported  to  be  ancient,  the  autliors  of  which  are  not  known.  We  pass  over 
two  or  three  Syriac  writers  about  the  time  of  Bardesanes,  or  a  little  later,  aa 
not  of  sufficient  importance  to  require  notice. 


HYMNOLOGISTS   OF   THE   THIRD    CENTURY.  351 

Bostra  in  Arabia,  was  a  writer  of  hymns.  Passing  by  Hippo- 
lytus,  who  wrote  odes  on  the  Scriptures,  which  are  lost,  and 
Athenogenes  the  martyr,  who  is  reported  by  Basil  to  have 
been  the  author  of  a  hymn,  which  he  delivered  to  the  by- 
standers at  the  moment  of  his  deatli,  and  which  is  also  lost,  we 
next  come  to  Nepos,  an  Egyptian  bishop,  who  flourished  a 
little  before  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  Nepos  wrote  a 
treatise  on  the  millennium  ;  in  reply  to  which,  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  in  a  passage  preserved  by  Eusebius,*  and  written 
after  the  death  of  Nepos,  speaks  of  him  with  affection,  and 
mentions,  among  his  other  merits,  that  he  composed  "  much 
psalmody,"  with  which  many  of  the  brethren  continued  to  be 
delighted.  The  character  of  his  productions,  however,  is 
matter  of  conjecture  ;  no  fragment  of  them  having  been 
preserved. 

We  come  next  to  the  famous  Paul  of  Samosata.  Of  Paul 
we  know  little,  except  from  tlie  representations  of  his  enemies, 
which  are  to  be  listened  to  with  great  distrust.  That  he  en- 
joyed the  friendship  of  Zenobia,  the  celebrated  Queen  of  Pal- 
myra, and  found  an  unrelenting  foe  in  Aurelian,  the  murderer 
of  Longinus,  is  certainly  no  discredit  to  him.  That  he  was 
too  fond  of  pomp  and  display,  and  in  otlier  respects  exhibited 
an  inordinate  vanity,  is  not  to  be  doubted.  To  his  many 
popular  qualities  and  eminent  gifts  of  intellect,  he  added  the 
zeal  of  a  reformer  ;  Avhich,  after  all,  we  suspect,  was  his  great 
crime  in  the  eye  of  the  bishops,  —  an  offence  they  could  never 
forgive.  He  contended  for  what  he  regarded  as  the  ancient 
simplicity  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  He  undertook  also  to 
reform  the  psalmody  of  his  church  ;  abolishing  the  psalms  and 
hymns  then  in  use,  as  "  recent,  and  the  compositions  of  modern 
men."  It  is  added,  that,  on  a  certain  occasion,  —  the  festival 
of  Easter, — he  "appointed  women  to  sing  psalms  in  his  own 
commendation  in  the  body  of  the  church."  But  this,  it  must 
be  recollected,  is  the  charge  of  his  enemies  ;  and  is  to  be  taken, 
it  may  be  presumed,  with  some  grains  of  allowance.  As  none 
of  the  hymns  alluded  to  remain,  we  cannot  judge  of  their 
import  for  ourselves.  It  can  hardly  be  supposed,  however, 
that  one,  zealous,  as  was  Paul,  to  restore  the  old  doctrine  and 
*  Hist.,  vii.  24. 


352  ANCIENT   HTMNOLOGY. 

old  music ;  who  rejected  the  hymns  in  use  in  his  church,  on 
the  ground  that  they  were  novel,  and,  as  we  may  suppose,  in 
his  opinion,  inculcated  sentiments  at  variance  with  the  ancient 
faith,  —  would  be  guilty  of  all  the  innovations  and  extravagance 
attributed  to  him.* 

*  See  Letter  of  the  Bishops,  Euseb.  Hist.,  vii.  30. 


A.RIUS  AND  OTHERS,  "WRITERS  OF  HYMNS. — THE  "  TE  DEUM."    353 


CHAPTER   II. 

Arius  and  Others,  Writers  op  Htmns.  —  The  "Te  Decm."  —  Pru- 
DENTiDS.  —  The  Poetical  Fathers.  —  Nocturnal  Street-Singing 
AT  Constantinople.  —  Council  of  Laodicea  attempts  to  regulate 
Church  Music.  —  Simplicity  of  the  Ancient  Doxologt.  —  No 
Trace  of  the  Trinity. 

Among  other  hymnologlsts  wliose  names  have  come  down 
to  us,  though  not  belonging  to  a  very  early  period  of  the 
Church,  it  is  sufficient  to  mention  Arius  and  his  contempo- 
rary Juvencus,  the  hymns  of  both  of  whom  have  perished ; 
and  Hilary  of  Poictiers,  who  is  said  by  Jerome  to  have  writ- 
ten a  "  book  "  of  hymns,  which,  however,  has  fared  no  better 
than  the  productions  of  his  predecessors.  Envious  time  has 
devoured  all. 

We  must  pause  a  moment  over  the  name  of  Ambrose,  Avho 
also  wrote  several  hymns  ;  among  which  Augustine  mentions 
the  "  Deus  Creator  Omnium."  *  The  others,  which  some- 
times go  under  his  name,  and  some  of  which  are  found  in  the 
Breviaries,  are  of  uncertain  authorship. f 

*  Conf.,  lib.  X.  c.  12. 

t  Tlie  tradition  whicli  makes  the  "  Te  Deum  Laudamus  "  the  joint  produc- 
tion of  Ambrose  and  Augustine,  first  sung  by  tliem  at  the  baptism  of  the  lat- 
ter by  Ambrose,  or  which  asserts  (for  sucli  is  one  version  of  the  story)  that  it 
was  received  by  Augustine,  while  at  the  font,  as  the  effect  of  sudden  inspira- 
tion, has  been  long  exploded.  By  common  consent  of  critics,  it  is  referred  to' 
a  later  age.  Archbishop  Usher  states  some  reasons  for  ascribing  it  to  Nice- 
tius,  Bishop  of  Treves,  a  hundred  years  after  Augustine's  death,  or  to  another 
of  the  same  name  ;  though  some  fragments  of  old  hymns  may  have  entered 
into  its  composition.  (De  Symbolis,  p.  3.  See  also  Bingham,  Antiquities  of  the 
Ckristian  Church,  b.  xiv.  ch.  ii.  §  9  ;  and  Tentzel,  referred  to  by  Le  Clerc ; 
Biblioth.  Univ.  etHist.,  t.  xxv.  p.  67.)  "  lUic  apostolorum  gloriosus  chorus,  illic 
prophetarum  exsultantium  numerus,  illic  martyrum  innumerabilis  populus  ob 
certaminis  et  passionis  victoriam  coronatus,"  etc.,  occurs  in  Cyprian,  who 
wrote  in  the  former  part  of  the  third  century  (De  Mortalitate,  ad  fin.). 

Augustine,  though  no  poet,  yet  occasionally,  it  seems,  tried  his  hand  at 
writing  Iiymns.  He  has  one  on  the  Donatist  controversy.  Gray,  the  poet, 
quotes  some  jingling  lines  of  Augustine,  in  which  rhyme  occurs  in  the  middle 
of  the  verse,  to  show  that  ihyming  verses  were  known  in  the  Church  as  early 


354  ANCIENT    HYMNOLOGY. 

We  must  add  a  few  words  on  Prudentius,  the  best  known 
and  most  esteemed  of  the  earlier  Chi*istian  poets.  The  ex- 
travagant praise  bestowed  on  him  by  some  of  the  old  ecclesi- 
astical writers,  however,  is  only,  proof  of  the  dearth  of  good 
poetry  in  the  Church. 

Prudentius  was  a  Spaniard,  born  in  348.  In  his  youth  he 
applied  himself  to  the  study  of  eloquence.  He  afterwards 
became  an  advocate  ;  and  having  passed  through  several  offices 
of  honor  and  trust,  both  civil  and  military,  he  finally  renounced 
secular  employments,  and  devoted  his  last  days  to  the  writing 
of  verses,  in  which  he  sung  the  praises  of  Christ  and  the  mar- 
tyrs, and  vigorously  combated  heretics  and  pagans.  But 
either  he  was  not  born  for  a  poet,  or  age  had  eftectually  ex- 
tinguished his  imagination  and  fire  before  he  sought  the  society 
of  the  Muses.  His  productions,  in  truth,  exhibit  a  very  mod- 
erate share  of  poetic  genius,  and  retain  strong  traces  of  the 
degenerate  taste  of  the  day.  His  versification  is  negligent, 
prosaic,  and  often  harsh  ;  he  is  not  sufficiently  attentive  to 
quantity ;  and,  in  his  general  style,  he  gives  evidence  that  he 
had  not  made  the  models  of  classical  antiquity  his  study. 

But,  however  inferior  may  be  his  merit  as  a  poet,  his  pro- 
ductions contain  frequent  allusions  to  the  opinions  and  usages 
of  Christians  of  his  time,  which  render  them  not  without  value 
as  sources  of  history. 

There  have  been  several  editions  of  his  works.  A  beauti- 
ful edition,  printed  at  Rome  in  1788,  in  two  quarto  volumes, 
contains,  besides  his  larger  poems,  twenty-six  hymns,  part  of 
them  designed  for  daily  use,  and  part  on  the  "  Crowns  of  the 
Martyrs,"  especially  those  of  his  own  nation.  These  hymns 
vary  in  length,  from  one  hundred  to  eleven  hundred  verses. 
Though  apparently  not  designed  for  chux-ch  service,  portions 
of  them  were  from  time  to  time  introduced  into  the  Brev- 
iaries, particularly  the  Spanish.  They  are  written  in  differ- 
ent metres,  partly  lyric  and  partly  heroic. 

The  humanity  of  the  poet  appears  in  some  sentiments  he 
has  incidentally  thrown  out ;  as,  that  the  number  of  the  im- 

%B  about  A.  D.  420.  The  most  ancient  instance  of  rhyming,  however,  he  ob- 
serves,  after  Sir  William  Temple,  is  that  of  the  Emperor  Adrian,  a.  d.  137. 
(Gray's  Works,  by  Mathias,  vol.  ii.  p.  31.)  For  some  remarks  on  the  early 
jse  of  rhyme,  see  also  Buckle's  History  of  Civilization  in  England,  vol.  i.  p.  213, 
9d.  New  York,  1868. 


PRUDENTIUS.  355 

pious  who  will  be  suffered  finally  to  perish  are  few,  and  the 
damned  find  occasional  respite  from  their  pains,  being  allowed 
one  holyday  each  year,  or  night  rather,  —  that  on  which 
Christ  left  the  region  of  Hades.*  The  sentiments  of  the  Fa- 
thers touching  the  state  of  the  dead,  indeed,  were,  as  it  is  well 
known,  various.  Even  Augustine  believed  that  souls  in  hell 
had,  at  times,  some  relaxation  of  their  sufferings.  Origen 
contrived,  finally,  to  save  even  the  Devil ;  and  there  is  not  an 
opinion  so  extravagant,  that  an  advocate  for  it  may  not  be 
found  among  the  old  Fathers  of  the  Church. 

At  the  close  of  the  poem  called  "  Hamartigenia,"  or  "  Birth 
of  Sin,"  we  find  a  somewhat  singular  prayer  of  Prudentius, 
which  has  given  offence  to  some,  as  savoring  of  impiety.  It 
certainly  savors  of  modesty ;  but  we  see  nothing  impious  in  it. 
He  prays,  that,  when  he  shall  die,  he  may  see  no  fierce  and 
truculent  Devil,  terrible  by  his  menacing  looks  and  voice,  who 
shall  immure  his  soul  in  dark  caverns  till  he  shall  exact  to  the 
uttermost  farthino;  the  debt  due  for  the  sins  of  his  whole  life. 
He  aspires  not  to  a  seat  among  the  happy.  It  is  sufiicient  for 
him,  he  says,  if  he  behold  the  face  of  no  infernal  demon,  and 
the  fires  of  insatiate  Gehenna  devour  not  his  soul,  plunged 
into  its  lowest  furnaces.  He  consents,  he  says,  since  a  cor- 
rupt nature  requires  it,  that  the  dismal  fires  of  Avernus  shall 
receive  him :  only,  says  he,  let  their  heat  be  moderated ;  let 
them  not  glow  with  too  intense  an  ardor.  Let  others  have 
their  temples  adorned  with  glorious  crowns,  and  dwell  in 
regions  of  purest  light :  only  let  it  be  ray  punishment  to  be 
gently  burned. f 

It  does  not  appear  whether  Prudentius  expected  these  fires 
to  be  temporary,  or  such  as  Avere  afterwards  known  under  the 
name  of  fires  of  purgatory ;  or  whether  what  he  meant  to  say 
was,  that  he  should  be  satisfied  to  be  moderately  scorched 
through  eternity.  In  either  case,  the  prayer  is  a  very  humble 
one ;  though,  as  we  said,  we  see  no  impiety  in  it.  But,  in 
truth,  Prudentius,  by  his  own  confession,  had,  in  his  youth, 
led  a  very  wicked  life.ij: 

*  It  has  puzzled  commentators  sadly  to  determine,  whether  the  spirits  here 
referred  to  are  spirits  of  the  damned,  or  those  only  in  purgatory, 
t  Hamart.,  ver.  931  et  seqq. 
X  See  Prooem.  Operum,  in  which  he  has  given  a  short  account  of  his  life. 


356  ANCIENT   HYMNOLOGY. 

Prudentius  had  numerous  imitators,  whose  names  have  long 
ago  sunk  into  obscurity ;  if,  indeed,  they  can  be  said  ever  to 
have  emerged  from  it ;  and,  in  the  destruction  of  their  works, 
the  world  has  probably  sustained  but  trifling  loss.* 

An  instance  of  the  use  of  doctrinal  hymns  occurs  about  the 
time  of  Prudentivis.  The  story  is  related  by  the  two  histori- 
ans Socrates  and  Sozomen.f  The  Arians  of  Constantinople, 
then  a  powerful  party,  being  deprived  of  their  churches  within 
the  city,  were  in  the  habit,  on  solemn  festivals  and  on  the  first 
and  last  days  of  the  week,  of  meeting  together  about  the  pub- 
lic piazzas,  and  there  singing  their  responsive  hymns..  They 
then  took  their  way  to  their  places  of  worship,  which  were 
without  the  walls  of  the  city,  so  perambulating  the  streets,  and 
passing  the  greater  part  of  the  night  there,  all  the  while 
chanting  their  Arian  hymns,  much  to  the  annoyance  of  Ortho- 
dox ears,  which  could  not  endure  to  hear  such  expressions  as 
the  following :  "  Where  are  they  who  affirm  that  three  are 
one  power  ?  "  which  frequently  resounded  through  the  noc- 
turnal air.  The  annoyance  was  not  all.  The  faitliful,  it  was 
feared,  might  be  drawn  away  by  the  seductions  of  heretical 

*  In  the  notice  above  taken  of  the  writers  of  ancient  hymns,  we  have  men- 
tioned most  of  the  poetical  Fathers,  as  they  may  be  called.  There  are  a  few 
others,  however,  who  maj'  be  entitled  to  notice.  Lactantius,  who  died  about 
the  year  325,  or  between  325  and  330,  is  mentioned  by  Jerome  as  the  author 
of  some  poems ;  and  three  or  four  attributed  to  him  are  still  inserted  in  the 
volumes  of  his  works.  But  they  are,  to  say  the  least,  of  doubtful  genuine- 
ness, and  probably  belong  to  some  other  writer  or  writers.  They  are  short, 
and  of  little  value.  Fritzsche  inserts  them  in  his  edition  of  the  works  of  Lac- 
tantius, Leips.  1844,  in  his  preface  giving  the  authorities  for  and  against  their 
genuineness.  (Gersdorfs  Biblioth.  Pair.  Lat.,  vol.  xi.)  In  the  same  century,  a 
little  later,  we  have  Apollinaris  and  his  son,  who,  when  the  Emperor  Julian 
(a.  d.  362)  prohibited  Christians  from  reading  the  classical  books  of  the  an- 
cients, undertook  to  furnish  what  were  called  Christian  classics  :  the  one 
translating  the  Pentateuch  into  heroic  verse,  in  imitation  of  Homer,  and  form- 
ing the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament  into  comedies,  tragedies,  and  odes,  in  imi- 
tation of  Pindar,  Euripides,  and  Menander;  and  the  other  taking  the  New 
Testament,  which  he  transformed.  Gospels,  Epistles,  and  all,  into  dialogues, 
after  the  manner  of  Plato.  Damasus,  too,  Bisliop  of  Rome,  about  the  same 
time,  was  the  author  of  some  worthless  verses.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  who 
died  A.  D.  398,  left  a  large  number  of  poems,  mostly  the  fruits  of  his  old  age. 
In  one  of  them,  he  gives  an  account  of  his  own  life.  Another  is  entitled  "A 
Farewell  to  the  Devil."  Mrs.  Jameson  pronounces  his  poems  "  beautiful "; 
but  how  she  is  to  be  understood  when  she  calls  him  the  "  earliest  Christian 
poet  on  record,"  it  is  difficult  to  say. 

t  See,  lib.  vi.  c.  8  ;  Soz.,  lib.  viii.  c.  8. 


COUNCIL    OF   LAODICEA   ATTEMPTS   REFORM.  357 

music.  Chrysostom,  tlien  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  was 
alarmed ;  and  not  tliinking  it  prudent,  in  so  dangerous  a  crisis, 
to  rely  exclusively  on  the  charms  of  his  eloquence,  he  resolved 
to  combat  the  heretics  with  their  own  weapons.  He  conse- 
quently instituted  musical  processions,  attended  with  great 
pomp  and  show ;  his  choir  traversing  the  streets,  shouting 
their  homoousian  hymns  in  the  ear  of  night,  preceded  by  per- 
sons bearing  aloft  silver  crosses,  surmounted  by  lighted  waxen 
tapers,  which  the  Golden-mouthed  had  invented,  the  Empress 
Eudoxia  defraying  the  expense.  The  result  was  such  as 
might  have  been  anticipated.  Discord  ensued.  The  hostile 
parties  came  into  collision,  and  an  affray  took  place  in  the 
streets,  during  which  several  lives  were  lost,  and  the  empress's 
eunuch,  Briso,  who  had  acted  in  the  capacity  of  singing-master 
to  the  Orthodox  choir,  received  a  wound  in  his  forehead.  The 
emperor,  incensed  in  consequence,  prohibited  the  Arians  from 
singing  their  hymns  any  more  in  public. 

The  subject  of  hymns  and  singing  engaged  occasionally  the 
attention  of  councils.  One  instance  of  the  kind  we  recollect, 
not  far  fi'om  the  time  at  which  the  events  just  related  occurred. 
We  refer  to  the  Council  of  Laodicea.  This  council,  in  its  fifty- 
ninth  canon,  prohibits  the  use  of  priv^ate  psalms  in  churches, 
as  well  as  the  reading  of  all  luicanonical  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament.  Some  irreoularities  and  extravagances  must 
have  given  rise  to  a  recrulation  of  this  sort.  It  would  be  con- 
struing  the  canon  too  rigorously,  we  think,  to  suppose,  with 
some,  that  it  was  intended  to  exclude  the  use  of  all  psalms, 
except  those  taken  from  the  Bible,  and  which  were  distinguished 
from  private,  as  being  derived  from  inspiration  ;  for  psalms  oi 
hymns.  "  M'ritten  by  the  brethren,"  were  in  use,  as  we  have 
seen,  from  the  first.  It  was  probably  meant  to  exclude  those 
only  which  had  not  received  some  public  sanction  ;  as  that  of 
the  congregation,  or  perhaps  of  the  bishops,  whose  power  and 
prerogatives  were  now  rapidly  increasing.  Of  this  we  have 
evidence  in  the  thirteenth  canon  of  the  same  council,  which 
ordains  that  the  "  choice  of  bishops  shall  not  be  left  wholly  to 
the  people,"  —  a  regulation  which  clearly  shows  that  the  peo- 
ple had  hitherto  been  accustomed  to  elect  their  bishops,  as  they 
had  been,  no  doubt,  to  use  their  discretion  in  regard  to  the 
hjnnns.     But  this  point  we  do  not  now  discuss. 


358  ANCIENT    HYMNOLOGY. 

This  liberty  enjoyed  by  congregations  or  churches  or  choirs, 
or  others  who  had  control  of  the  psalmody,  it  was  thought, 
had  been  abused  ;  and  complaints  were  uttered  that  "  ecclesi- 
astical music  had  taken  too  artificial  and  theatrical  a  direction." 
"  We  find,"  says  Neander,  "  the  Egyptian  abbot  Pambo,  in 
the  fourth  century,  inveighing  against  the  introduction  of 
Heathen  melodies  into  church  psalmody  ;  and  the  abbot  Isidore 
of  Pelusium  complaining  of  the  theatrical  style  of  singing, 
particularly  among  the  women,  which,  instead  of  exciting 
emotions  of  penitence,  served  rather  to  awaken  sinful  passions." 
Pambo,  speaking  of  the  too  artificial  church  music  of  Alex- 
andria, says,  "  The  monks  have  not  retired  into  the  desert  to 
sing  beautiful  melodies,  and  move  hands  and  feet."  Jerome, 
too,  condemns  the  use  of  "  theatrical  songs  and  melodies  "  in 
the  church.* 

After  this  slight  sketch,  it  will  appear  on  how  frail  a  foun- 
dation any  collection  purporting  to  give  the  hymns  of  the 
primitive  Church  must  rest.  There  are  not  half  a  dozen 
hymns,  we  will  venture  to  say,  in  existence,  —  certainly  not 
in  the  Western  Church,  —  which  can  be  traced  back  to  the 
time  of  the  Council  of  Nice  (a.  d.  325),  or  to  within  about 
half  a  century  of  that  time.f  Some  of  the  doxologies,  or 
scraps  of  doxologies,  and  ascriptions,  belong,  as  we  have  seen, 
to  an  earlier  period ;  though  their  original  form  has  not,  in  all 
instances,  been  retained. 

The  testimony  afforded  by  the  old  doxologies  to  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  ancient  faith,  especially  to  the  supremacy  of  the 
Father  and  the  distinct  and  subordinate  nature  of  the  Son,  and 
to  the  Spirit  as  a  ministration,  we  regard  as  of  great  weight. 
They  are  probably  the  primitive  doxologies.  Short,  simple, 
incorporated   with   the   general   sentiment,  and   entering  into 

*  Hist,  of  the  Christ.  Relig.  and  Church,  vol.  ii.  p.  318. 

t  If  we  except  the  hymns  of  Ephrem,  —  the  use  of  which  has,  we  suppose, 
been  confined  wholly  or  cliiefly  to  the  Eastern  Church,  —  we  might  add  another 
century ;  at  the  expiration  of  which,  or  soon  after,  we  find  Prudentius.  His 
hymns,  as  we  have  said,  were  not  designed  for  church  service,  though  parts 
of  some  of  them  found  their  way  into  the  Breviaries.  Most  of  the  Roman 
hymns  are  of  far  more  recent  origin  than  the  time  of  Prudentius,  or  even  of 
Gregory  ;  and  few  of  them,  it  is  presumed,  can  now  be  traced  to  their  authors. 
There  are  said  to  be  many  ineditcd  hymns  deposited  in  the  Vatican  Library 
find  in  other  places  ;  but  none  of  them,  probably,  are  very  ancient  (see  Halm's 
Chrestom.  Syriaca,  before  referred  to,  Pref.,  p.  viii.}. 


ANCIENT    HYMNOLOGY    NOT    TRINITARIAN.  359 

almost  every  act  of  worship,  the  doxologies  of  Christians  were 
little  liable  to  change,  and  would  naturally  retain  their  original 
form,  even  after  that  form  should  begin  to  conflict  with  the 
doctrines  and  expositions  embraced  by  speculative  minds.  In 
these  doxologies,  it  is  clear,  is  contained  the  old  faith,  —  the 
primitive  theology  of  the  Church ;  and  their  language  is  as 
decidedly  opposed  to  the  Trinity  as  any  language  can  be. 

The  hymnology  of  the  ancient  Church,  so  far  as  it  is  known 
to  us,  certainly  furnishes  no  support  to  the  Athanasian  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity.  The  testimony  of  Pliny,  that  the  Chris- 
tians of  his  day  sang  their  morning  hymn  to  Christ  as  to  God, 
or  a  God,  coming  from  one  educated  in  a  belief  of  Heathen 
mythology,  is  nothing  to  the  point.  The  fragments  of  Hebrew 
psalmody  or  hymnology,  given  by  Bunsen  as  ante-Nicene,  the 
Trisagion,  or  "  Thrice  Holy,"  and  other  scriptural  phraseology 
used  in  chants  or  ascriptions,  are  not  Trinitarian.  Flavian  of 
Antioch,  who  has  been  already  mentioned  as  introducing  the 
responsive  singing  there  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century, 
further  innovated  by  using  as  a  doxology  the  words,  "  Glory 
be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit "  , 
language,  before  that  time,  wholly  unknown.  The  oldest 
hymns  extant  contain  no  Trinitarian  doxology.  When  such 
a  doxology  is  found  at  the  end  of  any  of  them,  we  know  that 
this  part  of  the  hymn  is  comparatively  modern ;  of  which,  ex- 
amples enough  might  be  given,  were  it  worth  while. 


ARTISTIC   REPRESENTATIONS   OF  THE 
TRINITY. 


CHAPTER  I. 


Remains  of  Ancient  Christian  Art  bear  Testimony  to  the  Latb 
Origin  of  the  Trinity.  —  The  Father  :  how  Represented.  — 
Earlier  and   Later  Representations   of   the   Son. 

From  hymnology  we  turn  to  early  Christian  art;  and  we  do 
not  find  the  Trinity  there.  A  very  curious  and  interesting 
work  —  important,  too,  as  contributing  to  a  knowledge  of 
Christian  history  and  the  ideas  underlying  it  —  was  published 
a  few  years  ago  in  Paris ;  from  which  may  be  gleaned  valuable 
materials  which  illustrate  the  late  orimn  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.*  The  author,  M.  Didron,  did  not  write  for  any  doc- 
trinal or  theological  purpose  :  he  is  exclusively  artistic.  But 
he  is  all  the  better  for  that  as  an  authority  in  the  present  case, 
since  he  cannot  be  accused  of  being  swayed  by  partiality,  favor, 
prejudice,  or  antipathy.  He  thought  not  of  the  applications 
which  might  be  made  of  his  descriptions  and  statements.  His 
work  is  that  of  a  Trinitarian  and  a  Catholic  ;  yet  those  por- 
tions of  it  which  relate  to  the  earlier  Christian  art  bear  testi- 
mony which  is  clear  enough  —  testimony  which  no  cross- 
questioning  can  weaken  or  invalidate  —  against  the  Trinity  as 
a  doctrine  of  the  ancient  Church.  In  truth,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  is  no  more  found  in  the  relics  which  are  preserved 
of  Christian  art  belonging  to  the  Church's  elder  days,  than  in 
the  literary  remains  of  her  great  teachers.  In  art,  the  Trinity 
was  eight  or  nine  centuries  in  shaping  itself  into  forms  resem- 
bling those  afterwards  more  fully  developed.     "  There  exists 

*  "  Iconographie  Clire'tienne.  Histoire  de  Dieu  ;  par  M.  Didron,  de  la  Bib- 
liotheque  Royale,  Secretaire  du  Comite'  Historique  des  Arts  et  Monuments." 
Paris,  1843 ;  4to,  pp.  624. 


SYMBOLIC   REPRESENTATIONS.  361 

110  group  of  the  Trinity  really  complete,"  says  Didron,  "  in 
the  catacomhs,  nor  on  the  old  sarcophagi.  We  frequently  see 
Jesus,  but  either  isolated,  or,  at  most,  accompanied  by  the 
dove,  which  designates  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  perceive  a  hand 
(which  must  be  that  of  God  the  Father)  holding  a  crown  over 
the  head  of  the  Son,  but  in  the  absence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  cross  and  the  lamb,  which  symbolize  the  Son,  the  hand, 
which  reveals  the  Father,  the  dove,  which  sometimes  repre- 
sents the  Spirit,  are  frequently  painted  in  fresco  or  sculptured 
on  marble.  But  these  symbols  are  almost  ahvays  isolated,  very 
rarely  united  in  the  same  place  or  on  the  same  monument : 
they  are  i^arely  seen  grouped  or  combined."  *  In  a  group  — 
executed  in  mosaic,  about  the  commencement,  as  it  is  said,  of 
the  fifth  century,  a  voice  (how  indicated,  we  are  not  told) 
represents  the  Father ;  a  lamb  designates  the  Son  ;  and  a 
doveythe  Holy  Spirit.  This,  or  a  similar  group,  also  appears 
in  the  sixth,  eighth,  and  ninth  centuries  ;  but  is  rare.  These 
are  the  first  traces  of  the  Trinity  in  art.  But  it  is  to  be  observed, 
that  these  symbols,  including  the  hand  extending  the  crown 
and  the  cross  which  sometimes  appeal's  along  with  the  lamb, 
certainly  prove  not  a  co-equal  Trinity.  The  hand  reaching 
out  the  crown  intimates  the  supremacy  of  the  Father,  and 
subordination  in  the  Son.  For  the  rest,  —  to  say  nothing  of 
the  lateness  of  the  date,  —  all  that  we  learn  is,  that  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Spirit  were  held  in  honor,  as  they  are  by  all 
Christians.  There  is  nothing  at  this  period  of  art  which  shows 
that  they  were  regarded  as  one  or  as  equal,  but  the  reverse. 

There  are  no  early  artistic  representations  of  the  Father,  — 
none  before  the  twelfth  century.  The  early  artists  put  the 
Son  in  his  place  in  scenes  connected  with  Old  Testament 
history,  being  restrained  by  reverence  from  an  attempt  to  give 
an  imase  of  the  Father.  This  harmonizes  with  what  Justin 
Martyr  and  others  say  of  the  theophanies  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation.  As  before  intimated,  when  the  Father  is  first 
introduced,  only  a  hand,  extended  fi-om  heaven  or  from  the 
clouds  and  indicating  his  presence,  is  visible.     This  is  some- 

*  Iconographie,  p.  558.  The  dove  "  sometimes  represents  the  Spirit."  "  More 
frequently,"  it  is  added  in  a  note,  "  the  dove  painted  or  sculptured  in  the  cata 
combs  is  tliat  which  brings  the  olive-leaf  to  Noah,  and  not  the  dove  of  the 
Holy  Spirit." 


362  ARTISTIC   REPRESENTATIONS    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

times  rayed,  and  the  fingers  are  open  to  express  the  divine 
favor  dispensed  upon  earth  ;  and  sometimes  it  has  the  form  of 
benediction,  or  holds  out  to  the  Son  the  triumphal  crown. 
Sometimes  the  hand  is  neither  rayed  nor  nimhed ;  a  term  we 
shall  presently  explain.  In  a  Greek  fresco  of  comparatively 
recent  date,  it  is  represented  as  elevating  the  souls  of  the  just 
to  heaven. 

Thus  far,  the  honor  due  to  the  Father,  as  the  Supreme, 
Invisible,  Eternal  One,  is  preserved.  His  person  does  not 
appear.  Art  is  reverential :  it  has  not  yet  attempted  to  depict 
his  features  nor  represent  his  form.  In  the  thii'teenth  and 
fourteenth  centuries,  the  Father  ceased  to  be  represented 
exclusively  by  the  hand.  First  appeared  the  face  reposing 
on  a  cloud,  then  the  bust,  and  lastly  the  whole  figure.  The 
face  does  not  at  first  appear  in  the  proper  lineaments  of  the 
Father,  but  under  the  features  of  the  Son.  Before  the  expi- 
ration of  the  period  just  referred  to,  artists  began  to  introduce 
some  change  into  their  representations.  At  the  close  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  the  Father  gains  in  age  on  the  Son,  and 
has  specific  features  :  his  figure,  too,  becomes  more  round  and 
portly.  At  one  period,  the  two  appear  as  elder  and  younger 
brother :  but  finally  the  Father  assumes  the  form  of  an  old 
man  ;  the  Son,  of  a  man  in  mature  life  ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  a  youth.  This  was  in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  cen- 
turies ;  though  still  there  was  not  an  entire  uniformity ; 
the  Son  occasionally,  as  also  the  Spirit,  taking  the  age  of  the 
Father. 

Sometimes  the  Father  appears  with  the  imperial  or  kingly 
crown  ;  frequently  in  the  habit  of  the  Pope,  with  the  triple 
tiara,  especially  in  Italy.  The  French  disliked  this,  and  added 
two  crowns  more,  making  five,  one  above  the  other,  to  indi- 
cate that  the  Father  was  superior  to  the  Pope.  Under  the 
figure  of  the  Pope,  the  Father  became  a  decrepit  old  man. 
At  the  revival  of  letters  and  arts,  degrading  images  were 
gradually  banished  ;  the  Father  assumed  a  more  dignified 
and  sublime  form,  —  that  of  a  serene  old  man,  the  "  Ancient 
of  Days."  Finally  he  came,  in  the  farther  progress  of  ideas, 
to  be  represented  by  his  name  only  (Jehovah),  in  Hebrew, 
inscribed  in  a  triangle  surrounded  with  a  glory. 


TPIE    FATHER    AND    THE    SON.  363 

In  proceeding  to  speak  of  the  representations  of  the  Son 
in  works  of  Christian  art,  we  will  begin  with  an  observation 
of  Didron,  that  Christendom  has  not  erected  a  single  church 
specially  to  God  the  Father,  but  a  large  number  to  the  Son, 
under  the  names  of  the  Holy  Saviour,  the  Holy  Cross,  the 
Holy  Sepulchre,  and  the  Resurrection.  The  Cathedral  of  Aix 
is  dedicated  to  the  Holy  Saviour  ;  that  of  Orleans,  to  the  Holy 
Cross.  The  celebrated  Church  of  Florence,  where  repose  the 
ashes  of  Dante,  Michael  Angelo,  Machiavel,  and  Galileo,  bears 
the  name  of  the  Holy  Cross.  Churches  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre 
are  common  in  France,  and  are  found  elsewhere.  At  Paris, 
there  is  one  dedicated  to  the  Infant  Jesus.  Didron  further 
remarks,  in  this  connection,  that,  when  preachers  name  the 
Father  or  the  Spirit,  there  is  not  the  least  movement  on  the 
part  of  the  auditors  ;  but,  when  the  Son  is  named,  you  will 
see  men  bow  the  head,  and  the  women  cross  themselves.  It 
is  a  singular  fact,  he  adds,  that,  while  Newton  never  heard  the 
name  of  God  pronounced  without  taking  off  his  hat,  no  one 
now  thinks  of  uncovering  his  head  on  hearing  this  name ;  but, 
however  little  rehgion  one  has,  he  never  hears  the  name  of 
Christ  uttered  without  showing  marks  of  profound  respect. 
In  the  Apostles'  Creed,  it  is  remarked  that  four  words  only 
relate  to  the  Spirit,  nine  to  the  Father ;  while  five  entire 
propositions  concern  Jesus  Christ,  —  much  the  larger  part  of 
the  creed.  Proofs  might  be  multiplied,  says  Didron,  to  show 
that  the  Son  has  been  more  honored  than  the  Father.  We 
do  not  think  that  his  reasoning  is  altogether  sound,  though  a 
portion  of  his  remarks  are  perfectly  true.  The  fact  that  por- 
traits of  the  Son  existed  earlier  than  portraits  of  the  Father, 
does  not,  we  should  say,  prove  that  the  latter  was  less  honored, 
but  more  ;  for  it  was  their  reverence  for  the  Father,  and  dread 
of  idolatry,  which  prevented  Christians  from  exhibiting  him 
under  a  human  image.  In  the  middle  ages,  however,  there  is 
certainly  some  ground  for  the  charge,  that  the  Son  is  exalted 
ftt  the  expense  of  the  Father.  When  they  appear  together, 
the  Son  often  occupies  the  post  of  honor;  and,  when  their 
statues  are  used  as  ornaments  of  churches,  the  Father  is  thrust 
away  in  corners,  or  placed  in  situations  exposed  to  the  wind 
and  rain,  while  a  thousand  tendernesses  are  lavished  on  the 


8()4  ARTISTIC    REPRESENTATIONS    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

Son :  he  has  all  the  honors  and  all  the  triumph.  Even  the 
angels  are  often  better  provided  for  than  the  Father. 

The  earliest  portraits  of  the  Son  represent  him  at  full  length, 
under  a  beautiful  form, —  that  of  a  noble  youth,  without 
beard,  of  a  winning  figure,  from  fifteen  to  eighteen  years  of 
age,  with  long  and  abundant  hair  flowing  in  ringlets  over  his 
shoulders  ;  sometimes  adorned  with  a  diadem  or  fillet  on  the 
forehead,  as  a  young  priest  of  the  Pagan  gods.  This  was  long 
the  cherished  figure,  affectionately  caressed  by  art. 

At  what  precise  period  portraits  of  the  Saviour  first  ap- 
peared, it  is  impossible  to  say.  The  Gnostics,  who  were 
enemies  of  the  Father,  and  proscribed  his  image,  painted  and 
sculptured  the  Son  in  all  dimensions  and  forms ;  and  it  is 
maintained,  that  to  them  we  owe  the  first  portraits  and  statues 
of  Jesus.  Various  traditions  (entitled,  however,  to  little  re- 
spect) refer  to  Christ  as  having  been  represented  by  sculpture 
and  painting  from  the  very  dawn  of  Christianity.  The  Letter 
ascribed  to  Lentulus  —  addressed  to  the  senate  and  people  of 
Rome,  and  professing  to  give  a  minute  description  of  his  per- 
son —  is,  without  question,  a  forgery  ;  and  there  is  no  reason 
for  supposing  that  any  authentic  likeness  of  him  was  preserved. 
Augustine  asserts,  that,  in  his  time,  there  was  none.  The 
earliest  Fathers  of  the  Church,  conformably  with  a  passage  in 
Isaiah  (liii.  2),  believed  him  to  have  been  of  mean  appearance. 
In  the  fourth  century,  however,  he  is  represented  as  described 
above,  —  a  youth  of  extraordinaiy  beauty  and  majesty.  It  is 
remarked  as  a  curious  fact,  that,  in  the  series  of  monuments,  in 
proportion  as  the  person  of  Jesus  advances  in  age,  that  of  the 
Virgin  —  represented  as  old  in  the  catacombs  —  grows  young. 
Instead  of  forty  or  fifty,  as  at  first  represented,  she  becomes,  at 
the  end  of  the  Gothic  period  (the  fifteenth  century),  not  more 
than  fifteen  or  twenty.  In  the  thirteenth  century,  they  appear 
of  the  same  age,  —  about  thirty  or  thirty-five. 

The  earlier  artists,  as  appears  from  the  figures  sculptured 
on  sarcophagi  or  exhibited  in  fresco  or  on  mosaics,  sought  to 
embody  in  the  Son  their  ideal  of  perfect  humanity  in  the  form 
of  a  beautiful  youth,  as  the  Pagans  represented  Apollo,  and 
Christians  painted  angels.  A  Roman  sculpture  of  the  fourth 
century  represents  him  as  seated  in  a  curule  chair,  as  a  young 


REPRESENTATIONS    OF    THE    SON.  365 

senator,  in  his  robe  and  toga,  without  beard  ;  the  right  hand 
extended  and  open,  the  left  holding  an  open  volume  or  roll. 
But  this  is  sometliing  unusual.  Down  to  the  tenth  century, 
Christ  continues  to  be  most  frequently  represented  as  a  young 
man,  without  beard.  There  are,  however,  dux'ing  the  same 
period,  many  portraits  of  him,  in  tombs  and  catacombs  and 
elsewhere,  which  present  him  as  at  the  age  of  thirty,  and 
bearded.  The  latter  part  of  the  tenth  century,  with  the 
eleventli,  formed  the  transition  period.  This  was  a  period  of 
terror  and  barbarism  ;  a  hard,  iron  age  ;  an  age  of  war  and 
violence,  which  would  hardly  content  itself  with  the  old  rep- 
resentations of  Christ  as  a  youthful  God,  who  healed  all  in- 
firmities, solaced  all  miseries,  and  smiled  benignantly  on  all. 
The  portraits  of  him  now  begin  to  assume  a  severe  and 
inexorable  aspect.  The  beautiful  and  affecting  emblems  and 
imagery  suited  to  him  in  the  character  of  the  good  Shepherd, 
so  faithfully  preserved  in  the  earlier  ages,  disappear.  In  ad- 
dition to  the  barbarism  of  the  times,  there  was  now  a  general 
expectation  of  the  approaching  end  of  the  world  and  the  final 
judgment ;  and  Christ  becomes  the  austere  Judge.  Some  of 
the  portraits  of  him  are  terrible.  Milder  features  are  still 
sometimes  retained  in  places  where  gentler  manners  prevail  ; 
but  these  become  more  and  more  rare.  The  good  Shepherd 
is  now  changed  to  the  "  King  of  tremendous  majesty."  He  is 
now  insensible  to  the  prayers  of  his  mother,  who  is  placed  on 
his  right  hand  ;  and  of  the  beloved  disciple,  and  John  the 
Baptist,  his  precursor,  who  occupy  a  position  on  his  left ;  and 
sinners  have  nothing  to  hope.  Artists  selected  the  scene  of 
the  last  judgment  as  their  usual  subject.  In  some  Byzantine 
frescos,  Christ  appears  seated  on  a  throne  surrounded  by  angels, 
who  tremble  at  the  maledictions  he  pours  forth  upon  sinners. 
He  is  not  only  Judge,  but  he  executes  the  sentence  he  pro- 
nounces. The  words  of  condemnation  have  no  sooner  passed 
his  lips,  than  a  river  of  fire  is  seen  issuing  from  the  throne,  and 
swallowing  up  the  guilty. 

In  the  earlier  ages,  Christ  was  frequently  symbolized  under 
Jhe  figure  of  a  lamb.  But  the  favorite  representation  of  him 
in  primitive  Christian  art  was  in  the  form  of  the  good  Shepherd, 
frequently  exhibited  as  bearing  a  lamb  on  his  shoulders ;  some- 


366  AETISTIC   REPRESENTATIONS   OF   THE    TRINITY. 

times  standing  with  his  crook,  with  his  flock  around  him.  Tho 
flute  of  Pan  is  also  sometimes  put  into  his  hand.  These 
representations  are  illustrated  by  engravings  by  Didron,  and  by 
Dr.  Maitland  in  his  "  Church  in  the  Catacombs."  It  is  worthy 
of  remark  that  no  marks  of  suffering  appear  in  any  of  the 
earlier  representations  of  the  Saviour.  The  views  presented 
by  Didron  on  this  subject  are  confirmed  by  Dr.  Maitland,  who 
says,  "  In  all  the  [early]  pictures  and  sculptures  of  our  Lord's 
history,  no  reference  is  ever  found  to  his  sufferings  or  death." 
Again,  "  No  gloomy  subjects  occur  in  the  cycle  of  early  Chris- 
tian art."  *  The  exceptions  are  only  apparent.  On  this  sub- 
ject Mr.  Charles  E.  Norton,  in  an  admirable  series  of  papers 
on  the  "Catacombs  of  Rome"  inserted  in  the  "Atlantic 
Monthly  "  for  1858,  thus  expresses  himself,  giving  the  results 
of  his  own  observations  in  the  catacombs,  museums,  etc., 
during  a  somewhat  protracted  residence  at  Rome :  "  It  is  a 
noteworthy  and  affecting  circumstance,  that,  among  the  im- 
mense number  of  the  pictures  in  the  catacombs,  which  may 
be  ascribed  to  the  first  three  centuries,  scarcely  one  has  been 
found  of  a  painful  or  sad  character.  The  sufferings  of  the 
Saviour,  his  passion  and  his  death,  and  the  martyrdom  of  the 
Saints,  had  not  become,  as  in  after-days,  the  main  subjects  of 
religious  art  in  Italy.  On  the  contrary,  all  the  early  paintings 
are  distinguished  by  the  cheerful  and  truthful  nature  of  the 
impressions  they  were  intended  to  convey." 

The  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  exhibit  Christs  of 
remarkable  sadness.  The  Ecce  ho7no,  —  "  Behold  the  man," 
—  crucifixes,  descents  from  the  cross,  Christs  in  the  tomb,  are 
now  the  reigning  mode.  The  progression  is  singular.  In 
more  primitive  monuments,  we  see  the  cross,  but  not  the 
Crucified.  Some  crucifixes  appear  in  the  tenth  century ;  one 
earlier  :  but  the  Crucified  retains  his  winning  and  benevolent 
features,  and  is  clothed  in  a  comely  robe,  which  leaves  only 
the  extremities  visible.  In  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries, 
the  robe  is  shortened  and  contracted,  and  the  sleeves  disappear, 
leaving  only  a  sort  of  tunic.  This  becomes  as  short  as  possible 
In  the  thirteenth  century ;  and,  in  the  fourteenth,  all  that  re- 
mains is  a  piece  round  the  loins,  as  it  now  continues  in  the 
*  Pp.  259, 263. 


REPRESENTATIONS   OF   THE   SON.  3G7 

representations  of  Christ  on  the  cross.  At  the  same  time,  the 
countenance  bears  more  and  more  the  marks  of  physical  suffer- 
ing. The  contrast  between  these  later  portraits  and  the  earlier 
Christs  —  represented  as  triumphant  and  clothed  with  beauty, 
and  having  an  expression  of  ineffable  sweetness  —  is  sufiiciently 
striking,  and  marks  the  change  which  had  come  over  theology ; 
for  art  exhibited  the  reigning  theological  ideas.  At  the  revival 
of  art,  Michael  Angelo  rescued  Christ  from  the  pitiable  condi- 
tion in  which  he  had  been  placed  by  preceding  artists,  though 
his  celebrated  fresco  (the  Last  Judgment,  in  the  Sistine  Chapel) 
is  open  to  severe  criticism.  In  this  fresco,  the  Son  is  repre- 
sented as  an  angry  Judge,  hurling  the  wicked  down  to  hell. 
How  different  from  the  good  Shepherd  of  the  earlier  days  of 
Christian  art  T 

In  the  attitude  and  accompaniments  of  the  figures  repre- 
senting Christ  in  works  of  Christian  art,  there  is  every  possible 
variety.  He  is  now  seen  treading  under  foot  the  lion  and  the 
di'agon,  and  now  Death,  which  he  holds  chained  ;  he  now 
appears  in  the  vestments  of  an  archbishop,  with  the  archiepis- 
eopal  crown  on  his  head,  and  now  riding  triumphant  among 
the  angels  on  a  white  horse  ;  now  showing  his  wounds  to  the 
Father,  and  receiving  his  blessing ;  now  in  the  form  of  a  lamb 
with  the  nimbus  and  cross,  and  now  of  a  lion  ;  now  as  the  good 
Shepherd,  on  the  older  monuments,  and  in  a  multitude  of  other 
characters  and  positions. 


A.ETISTIC   REPRESENTATIONS   OF    THE   TRINITF. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Glory,  or  Nimbus,  in  Symbolic  Art.  —  Nature  of  the  Glory. 
—  Forms  of  the  Nimbus  and  the  Cross. —  Significance  of  the 
Nimbus.  —  Representations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  —  Later  Repre- 
sentations OF  THE  Trinity.  —  No  Early  Relic  recognizes  a  Co- 
Equal  or  Undivided  Three. 

The  glory ^  or  nimhus,  in  itself,  does  not  distinguish  tlie  Son 
from  a  multitude  of  other  personages  ;  and  even  the  nimbus, 
with  the  cross  traversinsi;  it,  does  not  distinguish  him  from  the 
Father  and  the  Spirit.  We  must  here  explain  a  little ;  and, 
though  the  remarks  we  are  about  to  introduce  may  appear  to 
some  to  be  a  digression,  they  relate  to  a  subject,  some  knowl- 
edge of  which  is  necessary  to  a  full  comprehension  of  works 
of  Christian  art  in  past  ages,  and  of  copies  or  engravings  of 
them  frequently  met  with  in  books  and  elsewhere. 

In  the  symbolic  art,  as  it  stands  connected  with  Christian 
monuments,  the  gloi^y  occupies  a  conspicuous  place.  When 
it  surrounds  the  head  merely,  it  is  called  a  nimbus;*  when  it 
surrounds  the  whole  body,  an  aureole.  Both  together  consti- 
tute the  glory  in  its  completeness. 

In  familiar  language,  we  speak  of  individuals  as  covered  or 
environed  with  glory,  Avhen  they  have  distinguished  themselves 
by  great  actions,  or  sublime  effoi'ts  of  intellect.  Alexander, 
the  conqueror  of  Asia ;  CjBsar,  the  master  of  Europe  ;  Aris- 
totle and  Plato,  who  ruled  in  the  realms  of  mind ;  Homer  and 
Vir<iil,  Avhose  works  have  fired  all  imaginations  :  Vincent  de 
Paul,  whose  zeal  inflamed  all  hearts  ;  Phidias  and  Raphael, 
who  produced  chief  works  in  sculpture  and  painting,  —  these, 
and  a  multitude  of  others,  are  described  as  surrounded  with 
glory.  This  mode  of  speech  has  been  always  common.  By 
a  similar  figure,  we  speak  of  the  great  suns  of  the  Church,  or 
suns  in  the  world  of  intellect.     To  render  this  glory  visible 

*  The  figure  is  then  said  to  be  nimhed.     The  term,  as  we  have  seen,  ia 
sometimes  applied  to  the  hand. 


THE  GLORY,  OR  NIMBUS.  369 

to  the  eye,  the  artist,  the  sculptor,  or  painter,  makes  use  of 
material  light.  So  God,  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  described  as 
surrounded  by  a  visible  glory,  or  shekinah  ;  and  he  appeared 
to  Moses  in  a  flame  of  fire,  in  the  burning  bush. 

Such,  according  to  Didron,  is  the  nature  of  the  glory.  Its 
material  element  or  representative  is  fire  or  flame,  radiating 
light  or  brightness.  Thus  the  Hindoo  divinities  are  I'epre- 
sented  as  environed  with  luminous  rays,  as  of  fire  ;  and  so  the 
devotees  of  Buddha  appear  in  some  books  found  in  the  Royal 
Library  at  Paris.  By  the  Greeks,  Romans,  and  Etruscans, 
the  constellations  represented  under  a  human  form  are  encir- 
cled with  rays  or  luminous  figures  exactly  similar  to  the  nim- 
bus and  aureole  of  Christians.  Among  the  modern  Persians, 
the  Arabs  and  Turks,  the  heads  of  sacred  personages,  repre- 
senting the  good  or  evil  principle,  are  surmounted  by  a  pyra- 
mid of  flame.  Appeals  are  made  to  numerous  facts  —  histori- 
cal, legendary,  and  poetic  —  to  show  that  such  was  originally 
the  nature  of  the  glory :  it  was  represented  by  the  subtile, 
penetrating,  powerful  element  of  fire  or  flame.  So  the  sun, 
among  the  ancients,  was  regarded  as  the  visible  symbol  of 
God :  and  the  Pharaohs  of  Egypt  and  other  royal  personages 
are  called  indiscriminately  children  of  the  sun,  and  children 
of  God ;  and,  by  way  of  distinction,  the  rays  of  the  sun  were 
transferred  to  tlieir  heads  in  the  form  of  the  nimbus  radiating 
light.  This  was  the  glory.  Its  use  was  coeval  with  the  most 
ancient  religions,  as  the  primitive  Hindoo  monuments  show. 
Its  native  country  was  the  East ;  and  it  may  be  traced  down 
through  Egyptian,  Grecian,  and  Roman  times,  till  it  finally 
passed  into  the  Christian  Church.  This  was  not,  however, 
till  some  centuries  after  Christ  had  ascended.  During  these 
early  centuries,  the  Church  was  engaged  in  struggles  and  per- 
secutions. It  was  laying  and  strengthening  its  foundations, 
not  applying  itself  to  the  embellishments  of  art.  When  the 
time  came,  it  laid  Pagan  antiquity  under  contribution  to  sup- 
ply its  needs.  It  borrowed  its  artistic  and  aesthetic  forms  from 
that.  By  the  aid  of  lustral  water,  it  transformed  the  Pagan 
basilica  into  a  Christian  church.  This  was,  in  some  sort, 
matter  of  necessity.  But  the  nimbus,  or  glory,  which  had 
adorned  the  heads  of  persecuting  emperors  and  false  gods,  it 
24 


370  ARTISTIC    REPRESENTATIONS    OF    THE   TRINITY. 

would  not  be  in  haste  to  adopt.  This  ornament  is  seldom 
found  in  the  catacombs  in  fresco,  or  on  sarcophagi.  Not  only 
the  Apostles  and  Saints,  but  the  Virgin,  and  Jesus  Christ 
himself,  are  represented  without  any  insignia  of  this  kind. 
Before  the  sixth  century,  it  is  asserted  that  the  nimbus  does 
not  appear  in  any  authentic  Christian  monument.  The  sev- 
enth, eiohth,  and  ninth  centuries  constitute  the  transition 
period  between  its  entire  absence  and  its  constant  presence  ; 
and  it  disappeared  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth.  Tlie  aureole, 
or  figure  surrounding  the  body,  went  through  similar  vicissi- 
tudes with  the  nimbus,  but  appeared  later  and  disappeared 
earlier,  and  was  of  much  more  infrequent  use. 

We  must  add  a  few  words  on  the  form,  application,  and  sig- 
nificance of  the  glory,  comprehending  both  the  nimbus  and 
aureole,  as  used  by  Christians.  The  nimbus  is  generally 
circular,  and  in  the  form  of  a  disk ;  the  field  of  the  disk  some- 
times disappearing,  and  only  the  circumference  remaining  in 
the  form  of  a  ring.  Sometimes  it  is  divided  by  concentric 
circles  into  two  or  three  zones  which  admit  of  a  great  variety 
of  ornament.  To  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century,  the  disk 
was  transparent ;  thence,  to  the  fifteenth,  it  acquired  thick- 
ness. It  went  through  some  other  changes,  a  knowledge  of 
which  assists  archaeologists  in  ascertaining  the  age  of  manu- 
scripts, and  relics  of  works  of  art.  We  meet  the  nimbus  also 
in  the  form  of  a  square  or  a  parallelogram,  and  occasionally, 
in  later  monuments,  of  a  triangle ;  sometimes  a  double  tri- 
angle, or  two  triangles  intersecting  each  other,  five  points  only 
being  visible,  the  other  being  concealed  behind  the  head. 
Didron  gives  a  specimen  of  the  single  triangle,  rayed,  and  sur- 
rounding the  head  of  the  Father,  taken  from  a  Greek  fresco 
at  Mount  Athos,  and  belonging  to  the  seventeenth  century. 
This  form,  which  is  rare  in  the  religious  monuments  of  France, 
is  frequent  in  Italy  and  Greece,  commencing  with  the  fifteenth 
century.  The  nimbus,  or  glory,  is  distinguished  from  the 
crown,  to  which  it  bears  some  analogy,  in  being  placed  verti- 
cally on  the  head,  the  crown  horizontally.  When  applied  to 
either  of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity,  the  circular  nimbus  is 
always,  except  occasionally  from  accident  or  from  the  igno- 
rance of  the  artist,  divided  by  four  bars,  crossing  each  other 


FORM    OF    THE   NIMBUS.  371 

at  right  angles  in  the  centime,  thus  forming  a  Greek  cross ;  the 
lower  bar,  however,  disappeai'ing  behind  the  head.*  It  is 
sometimes  rayed,  and  at  other  times  not.  In  some  cases,  the 
rays  appear  without  the  circular  line  as  their  base :  they  are 
sometimes  unequal,  and  sometimes  equal,  exhibiting  the  form 
of  a  star.  The  colors  employed  are  various :  they  are  blue, 
or  azure  ;  violet,  red,  yellow,  and  white  ;  the  yellow,  or  color 
of  gold,  being  the  most  noble  and  expressive  ;  gold,  its  type, 
beino;  described  as  "  lio-ht  solidified."  The  color,  as  well  as 
the  form,  of  the  glory,  or  nimbus,  is  often  symbolical. 

The  application  of  the  nimbus,  or  glory,  among  Christians, 
appears  to  have  been   governed  by  no  very  rigid  laws.     It 

*  Of  the  cross,  there  are  four  species,  —  the  cross  without  a  summit,  repre- 
sented by  the  letter  T,  which  was  the  form  of  some  of  the  ancient  churches; 
the  cross  witli  tlie  summit  and  one  transverse  bar ;  with  two;  and  with  three. 
The  cross  with  four  branches,  or  arms,  which  is  the  most  common,  is  of  two 
kinds,  whicli  again  exliibit  several  varieties.  The  Greek  cross  is  composed 
of  four  equal  bars,  placed  at  right  angles,  and  capable  of  being  inscribed  in  a 
circle.  It  is  this,  which  is  placed  in  the  nimbus,  or  circle,  which  marks  the 
divine  personages.  The  Latin  cross  has  the  foot,  or  lower  part  of  the  shaft, 
longer  th^n  the  upper  part,  and  longer  than  the  arms.  It  is  represented  by  a 
man  standing  with  his  arms  extended.  This,  of  course,  cannot  be  inscribed 
in  a  circle,  but  requires  a  parallelogram.  On  the  difference,  Didron  remarks 
thus  :  "  The  Latin  cross  resembles  the  real  cross  of  Jesus  ;  and  the  Greek,  an 
ideal  one.  So  the  Latins,  greater  materialists,  have  preferred  tlie  natural 
form  :  the  Greeks,  more  spiritual,  have  idealized  the  reality,  —  have  poetized 
and  transfigured  the  cross  of  Calvary.  Of  a  gibbet,  the  Greeks  have  made  an 
ornament."  Originally,  the  two  types,  or  forms,  were  common  to  the  Greek 
and  Latin  Churches  ;  but  afterwards  one  predominated  in  the  I*)ast ;  and  the 
other  in  the  West :  hence  the  names.  Many  of  the  Oriental  churches  have 
the  form  of  the  Greek  cross.  The  form  of  the  Latin  has  had  the  preference 
in  the  West,  though  neither  form  has  been  closely  adhered  to  in  sacred  archi- 
tecture. The  cross  of  St.  Andrew  differs  from  the  Greek  cross  in  having  its 
bars  intersect  each  other  obliquely,  forming  a  figure  resembling  the  letter  X. 

The  cross  is  sometimes  ornamented,  and  sometimes  interlaced,  so  to  sjieak; 
the  monogram  of  the  names  of  the  Saviour  —  the  Greek  chi  (X)  and  rho  (V), 
the  first  two  letters  of  the  Greek  word  for  Christ,  and  the  iota  (I),  the  initial 
of  the  Greek  word  for  Jesus  —  being  united  with  the  Greek  or  Roman  cross, 
or  cross  of  St.  Andrew.  These  are  sometimes  enclosed  in  a  circle  or  square, 
and  sometimes  not.  The  first  and  last  letter  of  the  Greek  alphabet,  the  alpha 
and  omega,  are  sometimes  added  ;  and  sometimes  branches  of  palm,  indicative 
of  victory.  Some  of  these  forms  are  very  beautiful.  They  frequently  ap- 
pear on  works  of  Christian  art  in  the  early  ages,  on  sarcophagi,  and  in  cata- 
combs ;  on  monuments  of  the  dead,  where  they  are  far  more  appropriate  than 
many  of  the  emblems  of  Heathen  origin  which  greet  the  eye  in  our  modern 
cemeteries.  We  might  add  other  particulars  relating  to  the  form,  ornaments, 
and  use  of  the  cross ;  but  we  have  already  too  far  extended  this  note. 


372  ARTISTIC    REPRESENTATIONS    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

decorated  the  persons  of  the  Trinity,  represented  singly  or 
united ;  angels,  prophets,  the  Virgin  Mary,  saints,  and  mar- 
tyrs. It  is  occasionally  assigned  to  the  virtues  personified,  to 
allegorical  beings,  and  to  the  powers  and  affections  of  the 
human  soul ;  sometimes,  but  rarely,  to  the  representatives  of 
political  power;  to  the  forces  of  natui"e,  the  sun  and  moon, 
the  winds,  the  four  elements,  the  cardinal  points,  day  and 
night  (personified),  and  even  the  genius  of  evil,  Satan. 

Its  significance  varies  with  time  and  place.  According  to 
the  ideas  prevalent  in  the  West,  it  is  an  attribute  of  holiness, 
—  divinity  or  saintship,  —  as  the  crown  is  of  royalty.  It  is 
somewhat  different  in  the  East.  Among  the  Orientals,  the 
nimbus  was  used  to  designate  physical  energy,  as  well  as  moral 
force  ;  civil  or  political  power,  as  well  as  religious  authority. 
Thus,  in  a  Turkish  manuscript,  in  the  Royal  Library  of  Paris, 
Aureng-zebe  wears  the  nimbus,  or  glory.  In  the  West,  with 
few  exceptions,  a  king,  emperor,  or  magistrate,  never  appears 
nimhed,  unless  canonized,  or  exalted  to  the  rank  of  a  saint.* 
The  Pagan  idea  continued  to  pi'evail  in  the  East ;  according 
to  which,  the  glory  was  an  attribute  of  power,  not  of  holiness. 
The  Oriental  Christians,  indeed,  were  exceedingly  prodigal  in 
the  use  of  the  glory.  While  those  of  the  West  reserved  it 
chiefly  for  God  and  the  saints,  restraining  it  to  qualities  of  the 
soul,  rarely  extending  it  to  physical  properties  or  mere  intel- 
lectual energy,  or  force  used  for  evil,  it  is  not  uncommon  In 
the  East  to  see  it  applied  to  any  Individual  in  any  way  distin- 
guished ;  to  a  virtuous  man  and  a  criminal,  to  archangel  and 
devil ;  to  whatever,  in  fact,  was  famous  or  put  forth  mighty 
energy,  whether  for  good  or  for  evil.f 

*  It  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind,  liowever,  that  the  absence  or  presence  of 
the  nimbus  does  not  deny  or  express  saintsliip  after  the  commencement  of  the 
fourteentli  century.  After  tliis  period,  it  loses  its  importance,  and  is  given  or 
witliliolden  somewliat  arbitrarily. 

t  In  illustration  of  the  profuse  use  of  the  glory  among  the  Greek  Chris- 
tians, a  Greek  Psalter  is  mentioned,  deposited  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris, 
adorned  with  numerous  curious  and  very  beautiful  miniatures,  in  which  the 
nimbus  appears  on  a  great  multitude  of  heads  belonging  to  personages  real 
and  allegorical,  good  and  bad.  Among  tlie  allegorical  personages  wliich  serve 
to  explain  the  history  are  Wisdom  and  Prophecy,  standing  at  the  side  of 
David  as  two  great  genii,  habited  in  female  attire:  in  his  penitence,  he  ia 
assisted  by  the  genius  of  Repentance;  in  slaying  the  lion,  by  the  genius  of 
Force.     So  Night  looks  down  upon  the  calamity  of  Pharaoh  as  his  host  is 


THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  373 

But  we  must  return  to  what  constitutes  more  properly  our 
present  subject,  and  proceed  to  say  a  few  words  of  the  artistic 
representations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Father,  says  Didron, 
is  the  God  of  power ;  the  Son,  the  God  of  love ;  and  the 
Spirit,  the  God  of  love,  in  theology,  but  God  of  intelligence, 
in  history,  —  distinctions  of  some  importance  in  their  relation 
to  Christian  works  of  art.  By  Scripture,  legend,  and  history ; 
by  works  of  art  in  France,  Germany,  Italy,  and  Greece, — 
Didron  affirms  that  it  may  be  proved  that  the  Spirit  is  the 
God  of  reason  ;  that  is,  addresses,  directs,  and  enlightens  the 
reason  ;  and  thus  it  is  represented  as  holding  a  book. 

Monuments,  as  churches  and  convents,  dedicated  to  the 
Spirit,  are  fewer  than  those  dedicated  to  the.  Son,  but  more 
than  those  appropriated  to  the  Father.  A  similar  remark 
may  be  made  of  artistic  representations  of  it.  These  are 
various  in  form,  but  are  not  characterized  chronologically,  like 
the  representations  of  the  Father  and  Son.  The  artist,  in 
portraying  the  Si)irit,  seems  to  have  consulted  chiefly  the  taste 
of  his  country  or  his  own  fancy.  As  a  general  remark,  we 
may  observe,  that,  down  to  the  eleventh  century,  the  Spirit 
was  usually  represented  by  the  dove ;  then  the  honor  was 
divided  between  the  dove  and  the  human  form.  But  to  this 
form  no  given  age,  or  period  of  life,  is  assigned.  Thus,  in 
the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries,  it  apjtears  of  the  age  of 
thirty  or  forty  years ;  while  in  subsequent  centuries  it  appears 

drowned  in  the  Red  Sea.  All  these  allegorical  personages  are  adorned  with 
the  nimbus,  or  glory,  of  various  colors;  as  are  prophets  and  kings  also:  and, 
of  the  latter,  the  worst  as  well  as  the  best,  —  the  suicidal  Saul ;  and  Pharaoh, 
the  impious  King  of  Egypt,  at  the  moment  when  he  is  engulfed  in  the  abyss; 
to  the  latter,  a  nimbus  of  gold  being  assigned.  So,  too,  the  monster  Herod  is 
represented  with  the  nimbus  on  a  mosaic,  executed  by  a  Greek  artist;  the 
scene  portrayed  being  that  of  the  massacre  of  tlie  Innocents.  In  a  small 
church  at  Athens,  in  which  the  Supper  is  painted  in  fresco,  Judas  wears  the 
glory  as  well  as  the  other  Apostles  ;  though  the  color  is  black,  to  designate 
his  treachery.  In  an  old  Bible  adorned  with  miniatures,  belonging  to  the 
ninth  or  tenth  century,  Satan  is  twice  represented  in  the  presence  of  Job,  — 
whom  he  is  torturing,  and  over  whose  calamities  he  laughs,  — encircled  witli 
the  glory,  or  nimbus,  such  as  a  guardian  or  consoling  angel  would  wear ;  and 
in  an  apocal3'ptic  manuscript  with  miniatures,  referred  to  the  twelfth  century, 
the  dragon  with  seven  heads  combating  Michael,  the  serpent  with  seven  heads 
pursuing  the  woman  into  the  wilderness,  and  the  beast  of  the  sea,  wear  a 
nimbus  of  green  or  yellow,  like  the  saints  of  paradise.  The  manuscript 
appears  to  be  of  Byzantine  origin. 


374  ARTISTIC   REPRESENTATIONS   OF   THE   TRINITT. 

of  all  ages  from  that  of  an  infant  of  a  few  months  to  that  of 
an  old  man  of  sixty.  Whether  in  the  form  of  a  dove  or  a 
man,  the  Spirit  usually  has  the  nimbus,  with  the  cross  in- 
scribed :  but  this  emblem  or  ornament  is  sometimes  omitted ; 
and  sometimes  the  Spirit  itself  has  been  forgotten  by  the  artist 
in  scenes  in  which  its  presence  would  seem  to  be  particularly 
appropriate,  as  in  representations  of  the  Feast  of  Pentecost. 

The  three  personages  —  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  —  are 
often  grouped  in  later  works  of  Christian  art,  never  in  the 
eai'lier  specimens  j  as  the  Trinity,  in  its  complete  form,  was 
of  late  growth.  There  exists,  as  before  said,  no  really  com- 
plete group  of  the  Trinity  in  the  catacombs  or  on  the  ancient 
sarcophagi.*  Between  the  ninth  and  twelfth  centuries,  a  new 
element  was  introduced  into  the  representations  of  the  Trinity, 
or  at  least  became  more  conspicuous  than  before.  This  was 
the  anthropomorphitic.  The  ancient  Christians,  as  we  have 
seen,  had  carefully  avoided  presenting  the  Father  under  the 
human  form,  which  would  have  seemed  to  them  too  much  like 
bringing  back  Paganism.  But  that  fear  had  now  passed. 
The  Father  had  taken  a  proper  human  figure,  though  that 
figure  was  bon'owed  from  the  Son  ;  and  the  dove  of  the  Spirit 
had,  as  before  said,  yielded  its  place,  at  times  at  least,  to  the 
form  of  a  man.  Artists  now,  therefore,  began  to  depict  the 
three  persons  as  similar  and  equal,  and  all  in  the  human  form. 
In  a  manuscript  of  the  twelfth  century,  the  three  appear  of  the 
same  age,  in  the  same  posture,  and  having  the  same  costume 
and  expression ;  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  say  which  is  the 
Father,  and  which  the  Son  or  the  Spirit.  In  opposition  to  this 
complete  anthropomorphism,  which  so  essentially  materialized 
and  divided  the  Trinity,  an  attempt  was  made  to  present  it 
under  the  most  abstract  form,  and  one  which  would  save  the 
Unity ;  and,  for  this  purpose,  geometry  supplied  the  triangle. 
During  the  next,  or  Gothic  period,  as  it  is  called,  —  that  is, 

*  Mr.  Norton,  before  quoted,  says,  "  No  attempt  to  represent  the  Trinity 
(an  irreverence  which  did  not  become  familiar  till  centuries  later)  exists  in 
the  catacombs ;  and  no  sign  of  the  existence  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is 
to  be  met  with  in  them,  unless  in  works  of  a  very  late  period."  See  also 
what  he  says  of  the  "  undoubted  earlier  inscriptions  "  in  connection  with  "  the 
peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Church."  —  Atlantic  Monlhlif  for  June  and 
July,  1858. 


ANTHROPOMORPHITIC    TRINITY.  375 

from  the  thirteenth  to  the  fifteenth  centuries,  —  a  furtlier  ad- 
vance was  made.  The  persons  heretofore  represented  as  dis- 
tinct, though  sitting  on  the  same  throne,  as  in  the  manuscript 
just  referred  to,  are  united;  the  three  bodies,  fonnino-  one, 
having  three  heads.  On  the  other  side,  the  geometric  ilhis- 
trations  were  continued,  and  improved  upon.  Three  circles 
were  adopted,  interwoven  with  each  other,  each  circle  con- 
taining one  syllable  of  tlie  word  Trinitas  (Trinity),  and  the 
central  space  formed  by  the  intersecting  circles,  containing  the 
word  Unitas  (Unity),  —  Trinity  in  Unity.  The  subtle  genius 
of  Dante  occasionally  adopted  similar  geometric  illustrations. 
The  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  retained  all  the  types, 
figures,  and  imagery  used  in  former  periods  to  represent  the 
Trinity  and  exhibit  its  mystic  glories.  It  was  an  age  of  syn- 
cretism. The  anthropomorphitic  Trinity  is  still  continued, 
and  exhibits  some  remarkable  characteristics.  Thus  the  three 
heads  are  not  simply  placed  in  juxtaposition,  do  not  simply 
adhere,  but  are  mingled  and  confounded,  presenting  three 
faces  under  one  cranium.  Beyond  this,  one  would  think,  art 
could  not  go  ;  and,  in  attempting  some  further  improvements, 
it  fell  into  the  monstrous.  Of  this,  some  examples  are  ad- 
duced ;  which,  from  their  grossness,  we  must  be  excused  from 
describing.  The  Church  was  at  length  compelled  to  intei'fere : 
and,  in  1628,  Pope  Urban  VIII.  prohibited  the  representation 
of  the  Trinity  under  the  form  of  a  man  with  three  heads,  or 
one  head  with  three  faces,  and  similar  representations  ;  and 
Benedict  XIV.  renewed  the  decree  in  1745. 

Works  of  Christian  art  are  full  of  interest,  not  simply  in 
their  aesthetic  relations,  but  in  their  relations  to  the  general 
current  of  thought,  and  phases  of  opinion,  on  subjects  con- 
nected with  religion  and  theology  in  past  ages.  To  the  his- 
torian of  religion  and  the  Church,  they  afford  material  aid,  and 
not  less  to  the  student  of  human  nature  and  the  human  mind. 
The  most  valuable  knowledge  is  often  gleaned  from  sources 
where  the  superficial  observer  would  least  expect  to  find  it. 
An  important  part  of  the  history  of  a  nation  may  be  written 
from  its  popular  songs :  and  a  painting  or  sculpture  on  a  sarcoph- 
agus, or  in  catacombs  where  repose  the  ashes  of  the  buried 
past ;  an  image  cherished  with  religious  homage,  the  object  of 


376  ARTISTIC   REPRESENTATIONS   OF   THE   TRINITY. 

tenderness  and  devotion ;  ornaments  of  churches  and  manu- 
script illuminations,  embodying  the  ideas  of  the  age,  —  are  all 
things  full  of  significance  to  him  who  can  read  them  aright. 

We  add  simply,  that  on  urns  of  the  dead,  on  monuments,  in 
the  catacombs,  among  the  relics  of  art  belonging  to  the  early 
ages,  which  time  has  spared,  you  nowhere  find  a  recognition 
of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  that  is,  three  in 
one,  co-equal,  self-existent,  and  eternal.  Stones  preach,  but 
preach  not  the  Trinity.  The  Lapidarian  Gallery  in  the  Vati- 
can at  Rome  contains  many  simple  and  affectionate  inscriptions, 
which  speak  of  the  rest  of  the  soul,  and  its  peace  in  Jesus  ; 
but  neither  there  nor  anywhere,  on  any  ancient  stone,  rudely 
lettered,  or  on  sculptured  marble,  do  you  meet  the  Trinity. 
Primitive  antiquity  bears  no  trace  of  it.  It  has  not  left  behind 
a  single  fragment  on  which  we  read  it. 


FESTIVALS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  CHRISTIANS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Festivals  of  the  Ancient  Christians  disclose  no  Element  of  the 
Trinity.  —  Weekly  Festival  of  Sunday.  —  Easter,  the  Oldest 
Annual   Festival. — Old   Ideas   of   Lent.  —  Pentecost,   or   Whit- 

sunday.  no    other    annual   festival   known  in   the  time  of 

Origen.  —  Epiphany. 

From  hymnology  and  the  remains  of  Christian  art,  the 
transition  is  not  difficult  to  the  festivals  of  the  ancient  Chris- 
tians. In  vain  we  look  for  the  Trinity  in  these.  Some  of  them 
claim,  and  rightly,  to  trace  their  origin  back  to  a  primitive 
antiquity.  Their  history  has  its  use.  The  more  ancient  of 
them,  certainly,  may  be  regarded  as  so  many  monuments  of  the 
reality  of  the  facts  relating  to  Jesus'  life,  death,  and  resurrec- 
tion, recorded  in  the  Gospels.  Of  these  festivals,  some  account 
will  now  be  given  in  the  order  in  which  they  arose.  If  Christ- 
mas was  not  among  the  earliest,  that,  as  we  shall  see,  was  the 
natural  result  of  circumstances,  and  of  the  Christian  ideas  which 
ruled  of  old  ;  and  its  comparatively  late  origin  need  occasion 
us  no  serious  regret.  The  resurrection,  with  subsequent  events, 
particularly  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost,  it  was, 
which  gave  to  the  birth  of  the  child  of  Bethlehem  its  great 
significance  ;  and  we  need  not  feel  surprise  that  the  former 
(the  resurrection)  was  in  ancient  times  more  honored  by 
observance  than  the  nativity.  It  would  have  been  strange  had 
it  been  otherwise.  How  much  is  said  of  the  resurrection  and 
exaltation  of  Christ  by  the  Apostles,  in  their  speeches  recorded 
in  the  Acts  !  His  resurrection  and  exaltation  very  naturally 
gave  origin  to  the  earlier  festivals. 

But,  before  proceeding  to  speak  of  the  annual  festivals,  we 


378  FESTIVALS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   CHRISTIANS. 

must  say  a  few  words  of  the  weekly  festival  of  the  primitive 
Christians,  more  especially  as  it  was  intimately  connected  with 
the  oldest  of  the  yearly  festivals.  This  was  the  festival  of 
Sunday,  —  the  earliest  of  the  Christian  days  of  rejoicing. 

It  would  seem  that  the  disciples,  from  the  first  or  during 
the  apostolic  times,  were  accustomed  to  meet  for  thanks  and 
praise  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Certainly  the  oldest 
records  in  existence,  after  those  of  the  New  Testament,  refer 
to  this  as  a  well-known  and  established  custom.  The  first  day 
of  the  week  was  universally  distinguished  from  other  days  ; 
and  it  was  observed  as  a  day  of  joy,  a  festival  day,  on  account 
of  the  Lord's  resurrection  on  that  day,  of  which  it  was  a  stand- 
ing monument :  hence  called  the  Lord's  Day.  That  it  was 
uniformly  observed  as  a  day  of  rejoicing,  there  is  no  dispute : 
on  this  point,  all  the  old  writers  bear  consenting  testimony. 
We  do  not  mean  that  it  was  a  day  devoted  to  sensuous 
pleasures.  It  was  not ;  and  King  James's  "  Book  of  Sports  " 
would  have  been  as  offensive  to  the  early  Christians  as  it  was 
to  the  Puritans.  It  was  not  a  day  to  be  given  to  levity  and 
amusement.  But  it  was,  to  the  original  followers  of  Jesus, 
truly  a  day  of  gladness,  —  a  day  which  brought  with  it  not 
only  holy  and  exalting,  but,  in  the  strictest  sense,  joyous  recol- 
lections ;  since  it  restored  him  to  their  sight  after  his  death  had 
prostrated  their  hopes  and  filled  their  hearts  with  sorrow,  and 
they  believed  that  they  should  see  him  no  more.  And  this 
feature  the  day  retained.  It  was  always,  by  the  ancient 
Christians,  associated  with  the  resurrection,  —  the  pledge  of 
man's  immortality. 

On  this  day,  everything  which  had  the  appearance  of  sorrow 
or  gloom  was  banished  as  unfit.  "  On  Sunday,"  says  Tertul- 
lian,  "  we  indulge  joy."  *  So  far  did  the  ancient  Christians 
carry  their  views  or  their  scruples  on  this  point,  that  they 
regarded  it  as  a  sin  to  fast,  or  even  to  kneel  in  prayer,  on  the 
Lord's  Day,  or  during  any  part  of  the  interval  of  fifty  days 
between  the  resurrection  and  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  at 
Pentecost.  For  this  we  have  the  express  assertion  of  Tertul- 
lian.f  The  Jewish  sabbath  was  originally  a  festival  :  yet  it 
tame,  in  after-times,  to  be  associated  with  many  superstitious 
*  ApoL,  c.  16.  t  De  Corona  Mil.,  c.  3. 


FESTIVAL    OP    SUNDAY.  879 

observances,  which  gave  to  it  a  somewhat  grim  aspect:  and 
these  the  early  Christians  carefully  avoided  transferring  to  the 
first  day  of  the  week.*  They  would  not  call  it  the  "  sabbath  " 
even.  They  never  so  call  it,  but  either  the  Lord's  Day,  or 
else,  in  conformity  with  Roman  usage,  the  day  of  the  sun 
(Sunday),  generally  the  latter,  when  addressing  the  Gentiles  ; 
and  by  one  or  the  other  of  these  designations  was  the  day 
known,  and  not  as  the  sabbath,  till  so  recently  as  the  end  of 
the  sixteenth  century.  The  application  of  the  term  to  Sunday 
originated  with  the  Puritans,  who  introduced  into  its  observ- 
ance rio-ors  before  unknown.  The  old  Christian  writers, 
whenever  they  use  the  term  "  sabbath,"  uniformly  mean 
Saturday.  This,  as  well  as  Sunday,  was,  in  Tertullian's  timef 
(that  is,  down  to  a.  d.  200,  and  still  later),  kept  by  Cliristians 
as  a  day  of  rejoicing  ;  that  only  being  excepted  on  which  the 
Saviour  lay  in  the  tomb.  Even  the  Montanists,  rigorous  as 
they  were,  did  not,  at  this  time,  fast  on  these  days.  The 
custom  of  fasting  on  Saturdays  first  prevailed  in  the  Western 
Church :  though,  as  late  as  the  time  of  Augustine  (the  end  of 
the  fourth  century),  this  custom  was  not  uniform  ;  some  ob- 
serving the  day  as  a  fast,  and  others  as  a  festival.  But,  in 
regard  to  Sunday,  there  Avas  no  difference  of  opinion  or  of 
usage  among  the  early  Christians.  The  day  was  uniformly 
observed  with  cheerfulness,  yet  always  in  a  religious  way,  as 
Clement  of  Alexandria  expresses  it,  by  "  banishing  all  evil 
thoughts  and  entertaining  all  good  ones,"  and  by  meetings  for 
thanks  and  worship.  It  was  called  the  "  chief" —  as  it  were, 
the  queen  —  of  days  ;  a  day  to  be  ever  distinguished  and 
honored,  and  the  return  of  which  was  hailed  with  a  liveliness 
of  gratitude  which  the  faith  of  those  ages  rendered  easy. 

Christians  have  not  now   the  same    associations  connected 

*  Originally,  labor  did  not  cease  on  the  first  day  of  tlie  week  ;  but  it  seenas 
to  have  been  gradually  discontinued  as  circumstances  permitted.  At  what 
time  cessation  from  it  became  general,  if  it  became  so  before  tiie  time  of  Con- 
stantine,  when  it  was  enjoined  by  law,  except  in  agricultural  districts,  where 
sowing  and  reaping,  and  tending  the  vine,  were  allowed,  it  is  impossible  to 
ascertain.  The  exception  was  agreeable  to  the  old  Roman  notions  of  what  it 
was  right  and  lawful  to  do  on  festal  days,  and  what,  says  Virgil,  "  no  religion 
forbade." 

t  De  Jkjuniis,  c.  15. 


380  FESTIVALS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   CHRISTIANS. 

with  the  day ;  at  least,  not  uniformly  in  the  same  degree.  It 
is  not  regarded  so  exclusively  as  a  day  of  joy  on  account  of 
the  Saviour's  resurrection  as  in  primitive  times.  It  has  lost, 
in  part,  its  characteristic  distinction  ;  the  feelings  in  regard  to 
it  have  changed  with  time  ;  and,  to  the  ears  of  the  descendants 
of  the  Piaritans,  it  sounds  somewhat  strange,  no  doubt,  to  hear 
it  spoken  of  as  a  festival,  —  the  weekly  festival  of  the  Resur- 
rection ;  or  to  be  told  that  it  was  a  day  on  which  those  who 
lived  nearest  the  times  of  the  Apostles  regarded  it  as  unbecom- 
ing or  unlawful  to  indulge  gloom,  or  to  fast,  or  even  to  fall  on 
the  knees  in  devotion.  Let  us,  however,  guard  against  mis- 
take. We  should  form  a  very  erroneous  conception  of  the 
ancient  Sunday,  if  we  associated  with  it  the  ideas  which  the 
term  "  festival  "  now  probably  suggests  to  many  minds.  The 
joy  of  the  day  was  a  pure,  elevated,  religious  joy,  utterly 
removed  from  all  grossness  and  sensuality  ;  it  was  a  day  of 
worship,  though  of  cheerful  worship ;  a  day  devoted,  as  it  ever 
should  be,  to  the  alleviation  of  the  burdens  of  humanity,  and 
to  the  highest  moral  and  spiritual  uses.  No  day  has  done  so 
much  for  man ;  and  this  day,  and  all  its  influences,  the  Chris- 
tian world  owes  to  Jesus.  This  day,  which  suspends  so  many 
tasks,  —  the  "  poor  man's  day,"  as  it  has  been  called  ;  a  day 
of  which  it  may  be  said,  that  there  is  no  condition  of  humanity 
so  low  that  its  benefits  do  not  penetrate  it ;  the  influence  of 
which  reaches  the  humblest  mind ;  which  gives  a  truce  to  so 
many  worldly  thoughts,  and  compels  man,  as  it  were,  to 
respect  himself,  and  meditate  on  what  concerns  the  great  peace 
of  his  soul,  —  well  did  the  ancient  Christians  call  it  the 
"  Lord's  Day  ";  and  well  did  they,  and  well  may  we,  rejoice 
in  it,  and  ever  thank  God  for  it.  But  for  the  birth  of  the  Son 
of  Mary,  it  had  not  been.  But  for  his  resurrection,  after  he 
had  worn  the  crown  of  thorns  and  borne  the  cross,  it  had  not 
been. 

The  following  is  Bishop  Kaye's  statement :  "  From  inci- 
dental notices  scattered  over  Tertullian's  works,  we  collect 
that  Sunday,  or  the  Lord's  Day,  was  regarded  by  the  primi- 
tive Christians  as  a  day  of  rejoicing  ;  and  that  to  fast  upon  it 
was  deemed  unlawful.  The  word  '  Sabbatum '  is  always  used 
to  designate,  not  the  first,  but  the  seventh,  day  of  the  week  ; 


ANNUAL    FESTIVAL    OF    THE   RESURRECTION.  381 

which  appears  in  TertulHan's  time  to  have  been  also  kept  as  a 
day  of  rejoicing.  .  .  .  The  Saturday  before  Easter  Day  was, 
however,  an  exception  :  that  was  observed  as  a  fast."  * 

We  come  now  to  the  yearly  festivals  of  the  old  Christians. 
The  oldest  of  these  was,  like  the  weekly  festival,  that  of  the 
Resurrection,  now  called  Easter  ;  originally  the  festival  of  the 
Passover,  during  which  the  Saviour  suffered.  This  was  cele- 
brated from  the  first  among  the  Jewish  Christians  ;  Christian 
ideas  being  ingrafted  on  the  old  Jewish  ideas  respecting  it. 
No  older  festival  appears  among  the  Gentile  Christians.  The 
time  when  they  began  to  observe  it  cannot  be  defined  ;  but 
it  was  very  early.  The  obligation  of  its  observance,  as  that 
of  the  other  annual  festivals,  was  not,  however,  regarded  by 
Christians  of  the  early  ages  as  resting  on  any  precept  or  law 
of  Christ  or  of  his  Apostles,  but  simply  on  propriety  and  usage. 
The  "  feast  of  Easter  and  the  other  festivals,"  says  the  his- 
torian Socrates,!  were  left  to  be  "  honored  by  the  gratitude 
and  benevolence  "  of  Christians.  As  men  naturally  love  fes- 
tivals, which  bring  a  release  from  toil,  they  would  each,  he 
observes,  according  to  his  own  pleasure  and  in  his  own  way, 
celebrate  the  memory  of  the  Saviour's  passion,  no  precept 
having  been  left  on  the  subject.  And  so,  he  says,  he  found 
it.  Christians  differed  as  to  the  time  of  celebrating  Easter, 
and  still  more  as  to  the  ceremonies  connected  with  it ;  all 
which  shows,  he  adds,  that  the  observance  of  it  was  matter 
of  usage  simply,  not  of  positive  precept. 

The  festival  of  the  Resurrection,  or  Passover,  was  intro- 
duced by  preparatory  fasting.  Occasional  fasts  in  times  of 
distress  or  danger,  it  seems,  Avere  not  uncommon.  J  Besides 
these,  there  were,  as  early  as  the  time  of  TertulHan,  the  half- 
fasts  (stationes ;  from  a  military  word,  originally  signifying  a 
place  of  watch),  observed  by  many  on  Wednesdays  and  Fri- 
days :  the  former  day  being  that  on  which  the  Jews  took 
counsel  to  destroy  Jesus ;  and  the  latter,  that  of  his  crucifix- 
ion. These  half  or  stationary  fasts  were  entirely  voluntary ; 
being  observed,  or  not,  as  each  one  chose  :   and  they  termi- 

*  Ecclesiastical  History,  illustrated  from  the  Writings  of  TertulHan,  pp.  388,  389, 
3d  edit. 
t  Hist.,  V.  22.  X  Tertullian,  Apol,  c.  40 ;  De  Jejuniis,  c.  13. 


382  FESTIVALS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    CHRISTIANS. 

nated  at  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon ;  *  though  the  Monta- 
nists  protracted  them  till  evening,  and  sometimes  longer.  For 
this,  however,  they  were  censured  by  the  common  or  catholic 
Christians.  The  only  fixed  fast  which  appears  to  have  been 
considered  as  at  all  obligatory  by  antiquity  and  general  usage 
was  on  Friday  of  Passion  Week,  as  it  has  since  been  called,  or 
the  anniversary  of  the  crucifixion  (Good  Friday).  This  was 
undoubtedly  observed  by  the  generality  of  Christians  at  a  very 
early  period,!  and  came  at  length  to  extend  beyond  the  limits 
of  a  day ;  its  duration  varying  among  different  Christians. 
Irengeus,  one  of  the  most  ancient  authorities  on  the  subject, 
says  that  "  some  thought  they  ought  to  fast  one  day,  some  two, 
some  more,  and  some  computed  forty  hours  "  ;  J  that  is,  the 
forty  hours  during  which  the  Saviour  was  supposed  to  have 
been  a  tenant  of  the  tomb.  These  forty  hours  were  gradually, 
in  the  process  of  time,  extended  to  forty  days,  in  imitation  of 
the  Saviour's  fast  of  forty  days  in  the  wilderness.  Hence 
came  Lent ;  which,  in  its  present  form  (embracing  a  period 
of  forty  days),  cannot  be  traced  back  beyond  the  end  of  the 
sixth  century.  So  late  as  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century, 
Christians  were  no  more  agreed  about  the  manner  of  keeping 
the  fast  than  about  the  time ;  for  nothing  had,  as  yet,  been 
settled.  Some  confined  themselves  wholly  to  vegetable  food  ; 
some  partook  of  fish  ;  others  added  fowls,  since  they,  according 

*  Tertullian,  De  Jejuniis,  cc.  2,  10,  13,  14 ;  De  Oratione,  c.  19.  The  reason 
assigned  for  terminating  tliem  at  three  o'clock  was,  that,  at  that  hour,  Peter 
and  John  (Acts  iii.  1)  went  up  into  the  temple  (Tert.  DeJejun.,  c.  10). 

t  It  was  founded  (Tert.  De  Jejun.,  c.  2)  on  a  misinterpretation  of  Matt.  ix. 
15  :  "  The  days  will  come,  when  the  Bridegroom  shall  be  taken  from  them  ; 
and  then  shall  they  fast  in  those  days."  This,  the  ancient  Christians  sup- 
posed, referred  to  the  time  during  wliich  Jesus  lay  in  the  tomb,  and  not  to  the 
time  when  lie  should  be  personally  with  tliem  no  more  ;  that  is,  after  his  as- 
cension :  the  true  construction.  They  would  then  be  exposed  to  danger  and 
sufiering,  which  would  often  enough  cause  them  sadness  of  heart. 

X  Euscb.  Hist.,  lib.  v.  24.  In  Socrates'  day  (middle  of  the  fiftli  century) 
there  was  no  greater  agreement  in  regard  to  the  fasts  before  Easter.  The 
Romans,  he  says  (lib.  v.  c.  22),  fasted  three  weeks,  excepting  on  Saturdays 
and  Sundays ;  though,  in  another  passage,  he  says  they  fasted  every  Satur- 
day. In  Illyricum,  throughout  all  Achaia,  and  at  Alexandria,  a  last  of  six 
weeks  before  Easter  was  observed.  Others  fasted  for  a  different  period,  all 
Btill  calling  the  fast  a  "  quadragesimal  fast " ;  for  which,  he  says,  some  as- 
signed one  reason,  and  some  another,  "according  to  their  particular  fancies 
and  humors." 


FAST  PRECEDING  EASTER.  383 

to  Moses,  came  also  from  the  waters  (Gen.  i,  20)  ;  some  ab- 
stained from  "  all  manner  of  fruit  of  ti'ees  ;  others  fed  on  dry 
bread  only,  and  some  would  not  allow  themselves  even  that." 
Other  usages  prevailed  among  others,  for  which,  says  Socrates, 
"  innumerable  I'easons  were  assigned  "  ;  for  there  was  no  au- 
thority to  which  any  one  could  appeal,  the  xA.postles  having  left 
every  one  to  his  "  own  will  and  free  choice  in  the  case." 
There  was  the  same  variety,  he  adds,  in  regard  to  the  perform- 
ances in  the  religious  assemblies  of  Christians.  "  In  sum," 
says  he,  "in  all  places,  and  among  all  sects,  you  will  scarcely 
find  two  churches  exactly  agreeing  about  their  prayers."  * 

In  speaking  of  the  fast  which  preceded  the  festival  of  the 
Resurrection,  and  was  so  intimately  connected  with  it  that  it 
is  difficult  to  separate  them,  we  have  said  all  that  is  required 
of  the  fasts  of  the  early  Christians ;  and  we  shall  not  return 
to  the  subject.  Nor  need  the  festival  itself  much  longer  de- 
tain us.  We  should  only  weary  our  readers,  were  we  to  go 
minutely  into  the  controversy,  which  for  a  time  raged  furiously 
between  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches,  about  the  proper 
time  of  keeping  it. 

The  feast  was  a  "  movable  "  one,  as  it  is  called  :  and  it  was 
necessary,  from  year  to  year,  to  announce  from  astronomical 
calculations  on  what  day  of  the  month  the  first  Sunday  after 
the  full  moon,  next  succeeding  the  vernal  equinox,  would  fall ; 
and,  as  Alexandria  was  at  that  time  the  seat  of  the  sciences, 
this  office  was  generally  discharged  by  the  bishop  of  that  place. 
There  remained  still,  in  different  countries,  a  difference  in  the 
time  of  keeping  the  festival,  this  difference  sometimes  amount- 
ing to  a  whole  month  ;  and  it  was  not  before  a.  d.  800  that 
entire  uniformity  took  place.  The  ancient  Christian  year 
began  with  Easter,  and  not  with  Advent.  With  the  old 
Christians,  indeed,  the  Resurrection  was,  we  may  almost  say, 
all  in  all :  on  it  the  truth  of  Christianity,  preaching,  every- 
thing, ]-ested.  Christ  rose,  the  Vanquisher  of  death  and  hell, 
the  First-born  from  the  dead,  the  Beginning  of  the  new  spirit- 
ual creation.  As  it  was  at  the  material  creation,  so  now:  light 
came  out  of  darkness  ;  from  night  all  things  came.  The  fes- 
tival was  called  the  "  salutary"  festival,  the  "kingly  day,"  the 
*  EisU,  V.  22. 


384  FESTIVALS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    CHRISTIANS. 

"day  of  victory,"  the  "  crown  and  head  of  all  festivals."    This 
was  not,  however,  in  the  earliest  times. 

The  ceremonies  attending  the  observance  of  the  festival  in 
the  second  century  were  simple,  compared  with  those  which 
were  afterwards  introduced,  partly  from  the  natural  love  of 
pomp,  and  partly  from  imitation  of  the  Heathen  festivals, 
which  Christians  could  with  difficulty  be  prevented  from  fre- 
quenting, and  from  which  many  observances  were  from  time 
to  time  transferred  to  the  Christian  festivals.  Vigils,  or  night 
watches,  on  Easter  Eve,  soon  began  to  be  kept ;  and  the  peo- 
ple continued  in  the  churches  until  midnight.  Constantine, 
naturally  vain,  and  fond  of  parade,  signalized  his  love  of  dis- 
play, and  perhaps  thought  he  did  honor  to  religion,  by  cele- 
brating them  with  extraordinary  pomp.  The  custom  had  been 
introduced  before  his  time,  of  lighting  up  a  vast  quantity  of 
tapers  in  the  churches  on  the  eve  of  the  festival.  Not  satisfied' 
with  this,  the  emperor  ordered  them  to  be  lighted  all  over  the 
city :  and,  further,  —  that  the  brilliancy  of  the  night  might 
rival,  or  even  exceed,  the  splendor  of  day,  —  he  had  pillars  of 
wax,  of  an  immense  height,  erected  ;  the  effect  of  which,  when 
lighted  in  the  evening,  is  described  as  brilliant  in  the  extreme.* 

The  next  festival  in  the  order  of  antiquity,  observed,  was 
Pentecost ;  that  is,  Whitsuntide,  or  Whitsunday  as  it  is  now 
called,  —  the  day  of  the  descent  of  the  Spirit,  fifty  days  after 
that  of  the  resurrection  ;  with  which,  as  a  festival,  it  was  in- 
timately connected  ;  so  intimately,  indeed,  that  they  may  be 
said  to  have  been  united :  or,  rather,  the  whole  interval 
between  Easter  and  Pentecost  was  kept  as  a  festival,  in  re- 
membrance of  Christ  risen  and  glorified,  —  no  fasting,  as  before 
said,  being  allowed  during  the  period,  and  no  kneeling  in 
prayer ;  for  this  was  a  token,  or  attitude  of  humiliation  incon- 
sistent with  the  joy  and  gratitude  becoming  the  season  ;  joy 
naturally  looking  up  to  heaven  with  outspread  hands. 

These  were  the  only  two  annual  festivals  known  in    the 

*  Euseb.  Vila  Const.,  lib.  iv.  c.  22.  According  to  Jerome  ( Comm.  in  Matt, 
^xv.  6)  tlie  Easter  vigils  were  kept  till  midnight,  in  consequence  of  a  tradition 
that  Christ  would  come  at  that  hour ;  as,  on  the  night  wlien  the  Passover  was 
'nstituted,  the  Lord  had  visited  Egypt  at  that  hour.  But,  that  once  past,  the 
people  could  with  safety  be  dismissed.  Lactantius  (Inst.,  lib.  vii.  c.  19)  refers 
to  the  same  tradition. 


tertullian's  account.  385 

Church  in  primitive  times  and  before  the  days  of  Origen :  the 
one,  commemorating  the  Resurrection  ;  the  other,  the  outpour- 
ing of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost,  called  the  Holy  Spirit's  Day. 
The  silence  of  Justin  Martyr,  an  earlier  Father,  on  the  whole 
subject  of  annual  festivals,  is  a  remarkable  fact,  which  should 
not  be  passed  over  without  notice.*  Tertullian  speaks  only  of 
Easter  —  the  Passover,  he  calls  it  —  and  Pentecost ;  though 
it  is  certain  he  would  have  mentioned  others,  had  any  been 
known  to  him.  On  one  occasion,  at  least,  he  could  not  have 
avoided  it.  He  is  censurino- Christians  of  his  age  for  attending 
Pagan  festivals,  and  attempting  to  dissuade  them  from  it :  and 
the  very  drift  of  his  argument  is,  that  Christians  possess  more 
festivals  than  the  Heathens ;  that,  if  any  indulgence  or  relaxa- 
tion were  required,  they  need  not  seek  it  at  the  Pagan  festivals, 
for  they  had  enough  of  their  own.  But  his  enumeration  does 
not  extend  beyond  those  already  specified.!  Could  he  have 
adduced  others,  his  position  would  have  been  so  far  strength- 
ened ;  and  Tertullian  was  not  the  man  unnecessarily  to  yield 
any  advantage  in  an  argument.  But,  independently  of  this 
consideration,  it  is  impossible,  we  should  say,  for  any  one  to 
read  Tertullian,  and  note  his  frequent  allusions  to  Christian 
fasts  and  festivals  by  name,  and  believe  that  he  would  have 
omitted  to  notice  other  holidays,  had  they  existed  in  his  time. 

Bishop  Kaye,  who  had  very  carefully  read  the  works  of 
Tertullian,  confirms  the  statement  above  made.  He  says, 
that,  in  the  writings  of  this  Father,  "  we  find  no  notice  of  the 
celebration  of  our  Lord's  nativity,  although  the  festivals  of 
Easter  and  Whitsuntide  are  frequently  mentioned :  with  refer- 
ence to  which  it  should  be  observed,  that  the  word  '  Pascha  ' 
was  not  used  to  signify  merely  the  day  of  our  Lord's  resur- 

*  He  wrote  in  the  former  part  of  the  second  century.  Though  he  describes 
baptism  at  large,  he  does  not  mention  any  festivals  with  which  it  was  con- 
nected. Nor  does  it  appear,  from  the  writings  of  Christian  antiquitj',  when 
Easter  and  Pentecost  first  came  to  be  considered  as  the  most  suitable  seasons 
for  the  performance  of  the  rite.  The  Oriental  Christians  baptized  also  at 
Epiphany. 

t  De  Idololatria,  c.  14.  All  the  Heathen  festivals,  Tertullian  says,  would 
not  amount  to  one  Pentecost,  or  feast  of  fifty  days.  We  may  observe  here, 
'hat  this  feast  included  whatever  notice  was  taken  of  the  Ascension,  no  dis- 
tinct festival  of  which  is  mentioned  by  any  early  writer  ;  nor  does  any  such 
appear  to  have  existed  before  some  time  in  the  fourth  century. 

25 


386  FESTIVALS   OP  THE   ANCIENT    CHRISTIANS. 

rection,  but  also  the  day  of  his  passion  ;  or,  rather,  the  whole 
interval  of  time  from  his  crucifixion  to  his  resurrection.  In 
like  manner,  the  word  '  Pentecoste '  signifies,  not  merely 
Whitsunday,  but  also  the  fifty  days  which  intervened  between 
Easter  and  Whitsunday."  * 

We  have  already  alluded  to  Origen,  who,  in  piety,  genius, 
and  learning,  had  no  superior  among  the  early  Fathers.  Ori- 
gen wrote  in  the  former  part  of  the  third  century.  He  was 
well  acquainted  with  the  opinions  and  usages  of  Christians  of 
his  day ;  and,  had  any  such  festival  as  that  of  the  Nativity 
existed  in  his  time,  he  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  the 
fact.  Yet  he  does  not  mention  it ;  though  he  expressly  names 
the  others  of  which  we  have  spoken,  and  under  circumstances 
which  would  render  the  absence  of  all  allusion  to  this  wholly 
inexplicable,  had  any  such  festival  been  then  observed.  In 
reply  to  an  objection  of  Celsus,  he  speaks  of  the  nature  of  fes- 
tivals ;  and  of  such,  in  particular,  as  Christians  might  lawfully 
attend.  He  does  not  extravagantly  exalt  festivals.  In  com- 
mon with  Christians  of  his  day,  he  makes  purity  of  the  affec- 
tions, and  a  uniformly  upright  and  holy  life,  the  great  dis- 
tinguishing characteristic  of  the  Christian.  These  were  a 
perpetual  offering.  The  perfect  Christian,  he  says,  does  not 
need  festivals  ;  all  his  days  are  Lord's  days  ;  and,  "  passing 
over  from  the  things  of  this  life  to  God,"  he  "  celebrates  a 
continual  Passover,  which  means  transition  ";  and  being  able 
to  say  with  the  Apostle,  we  are  "  risen  with  Christ,  in  the 
Spirit,"  he  keeps  an  unbroken  Pentecost.  But  the  multitude 
require  sensible  objects,  he  says,  to  renew  the  memory  of  what 
would  else  pass  away  and  be  forgotten.  He  enumerates  the 
Christian  festivals  in  the  following  order :  "  Lord's  days,  the 
Passover  and  Pentecost."  f  No  other  festivals  are  alluded  to 
here,  or  elsewhere  in  the  four  folio  volumes  of  this  eminent 
Father  of  the  Church. 

In  the  time  of  Origen,  then,  the  only  Christian  festivals  in 
existence  —  those  of  the  martyrs  excepted,  of  which  we  do 
not  now  speak  —  were  Sunday,  the  Passover,  and  Pentecost ; 
the   preparatory  fasts  being  included.      The   third,  or  next 

*   Writings  of  TertulUan,  p.  389,  3d  edit. 
t  Contra  Cels.,  lib.  viii.  §  22. 


EPIPHANY.  387 

oldest  festival,  was  that  of  the  Baptism  of  the  Saviour,  called 
the  festival  of  the  Manifestation  *  (Epiphany),  which  was 
celebrated  on  the  6th  of  January,  though  some  placed  it  on 
the  10th. 

*  Jesus's  manifestation  in  the  character  of  the  Messiah  at  his  baptism,  the 
original  meaning ;  and  not  "  manifestation  to  the  Gentiles  "  at  the  coming  of 
the  "wise  men,"  a  turn  subsequently  given  it.  The  festival  vras  probably  of 
Jewish- Christian  origin;  though  it  is  first  traced  among  the  followers  of 
Basilides  in  Egypt,  in  the  time  of  Clement.  The  Jewish  Christians  attached 
particular  importance  to  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  by  which  he  became  the  Son 
of  God.  "And,  lo,  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased."  This  view  also  explains  the  fact,  that  the  birth 
and  baptism  of  Jesua  were  originally  celebrated  in  one  festival. 


388  FESTIVALS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    CHRISTIANS. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Christmas:   first  celebrated   on   the  Fifth   of  January.  —  Uncee- 

TAINTT  ABOUT  THE  TiME  OF  ChRISt's  BiRTH.  TESTIMONY  OF  CLEM- 
ENT OF  Alexandria.  —  Chrysostom's  Testimony  to  the  late  Origin 
OF  the  Festival  in  the  East.  —  Dr.  Milman's  Statement. — Or- 
der OF  the  Christian  Festivals.  —  Late  Origin  of  Christmas 
explained.  —  No  Trinitarianism  in  either  of  the  Old  Festivals. 

With  Epiphany  celebrated  on  the  6th  of  January,  as  ob- 
served at  the  conclusion  of  the  last  chapter,  was  united  the 
festival  of  the  birth  of  Christ  (Christmas),  at  the  time  we  first 
hear  of  it ;  that  is,  in  Egypt.  The  first  traces  of  it  are  obscure 
in  the  extreme.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  a  learned  Father  of 
the  Church,  whom  nothing  seemingly  escaped,  and  who  flour- 
ished at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  does  not  expressly 
mention  it.  His  testimony,  however,  is  important,  as  showing 
the  ignorance  of  Christians  of  that  period,  even  the  best  in- 
formed of  them,  of  the  time  of  Christ's  birth.  Both  the  day 
and  the  year  were  involved  in  uncertainty ;  and  Clement 
seems  to  speak  with  no  little  contempt  of  those  who  under- 
took to  fix  the  former.  "  There  are  those,"  he  says,  "  who, 
with  an  over-busy  curiosity,  attempt  to  fix,  not  only  the  year, 
but  the  day,  of  our  Saviour's  birth  ;  who,  they  say,  was  born 
in  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  Augustus,  on  the  twenty-fifth  of 
the  month  Pachon  ";  that  is,  the  twentieth  of  May.  He  adds 
soon  after,  "  Some  say  that  he  was  born  on  the  twenty-fourth 
or  twenty-fifth  of  the  month  Pharmuthi ";  that  is,  the  nine- 
teenth or  twentieth  day  of  April ;  *  both  parties  selecting  the 
spring  as  the  season  of  the  nativity.  And  here  Clement  leaves 
the  matter.  The  inference  is  plain.  The  day  of  the  nativity 
was  unknown.  Whatever  notice  was  taken  of  the  event,  was 
taken  at  the  festival  of  the  Baptism.     A  few,  prying  into  the 

*  Strom.,  lib.  i.  c.  21,  pp.  407,  408,  ed.  Oxon.  1715.  It  has  been  inferred,  how- 
ever, from  a  statement  made  by  Clement  relating  to  the  interval  between  the 
birth  of  Christ  and  the  death  of  Commodus,  that  he  himself  supposed  the  day 
of  the  nativity  to  have  been  the  18th  of  November. 


CHRISTMAS.  SELECTION    OP   THE    DAT.  389 

subject  with  vain  solicitude,  pretended  to  assign  the  day :  but 
they  differed  ;  only  agreeing  that  it  was  in  April  or  May.  In 
regard  to  the  precise  year  of  the  Saviour's  birth,  our  common 
or  vulgar  era,  by  the  general  consent  of  the  learned,  places  it 
from  three  to  five  years  (four  is  generally  assigned)  too  late. 

At  the  period  when  we  discover  the  first  trace  of  Christmas, 
it  was  thus  celebrated  on  the  6th  of  January,  having  been 
superadded  to  the  feast  of  the  Baptism.  About  the  middle  of 
the  fourth  century,  we  hear  of  its  celebration  at  Rome  on  the 
25th  of  December ;  the  day  being  determined,  it  is  asserted, 
—  though  not  on  evidence  which  is  perfectly  conclusive,  — 
by  Julius,  Bishop  of  Rome.  This,  we  believe,  is  the  earliest 
notice  of  it  as  a  distinct  festival ;  certainly  the  earliest  which 
is  clear  and  undisputed.  It  was  soon  after  introduced  into  the 
East ;  where,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Chrysostom,  who 
was  Priest  of  Antioch,  and  afterwards  Bishop  of  Constantino- 
ple, it  was  before  unknown.  "  It  is  not  yet  ten  years,"  says 
he,  in  his  Homily  on  the  Nativity,*  about  the  year  386,  "  since 
this  day  was  first  made  known  to  us.  It  had  been  before  ob- 
served," he  adds,  "in  the  West;  whence  the  knowledge  of  it 
was  derived."  It  is  clear,  from  this  testimony,  that  the  pres- 
ent time  of  celebrating  the  birth  of  the  Saviour  was  a  novelty 
in  the  East  very  late  in  the  fourth  century ;  and,  from  the 
manner  in  which  Chrysostom  expresses  himself,  the  conclusion 
seems  irresistible,  that,  before  that  time,  there  was  no  festival 
of  the  kind  observed  in  the  Syrian  Church.  He  does  not 
allude  to  any.  He  does  not  say  that  the  question  was  about 
the  day  merely ;  as  he  naturally  would  have  said,  if  it  had 
been  so.  "  Some  affirmed,"  he  says,  "  and  others  denied,  that 
the  festival  was  an  old  one,  known  from  Thrace  to  Spain." 
"  There  was  much  disputing,"  he  adds,  "  on  the  subject,  and 
much  opposition  was  encountered  in  the  introduction  of  the 
festival."  f  This,  it  must  be  recollected,  was  in  one  of  the 
chief  cities  in  the  East,  near  the  end  of  the  fourth  century. 

*  0pp.,  t.  ii.  pp.  417-432,  ed.  Par.  1838. 

t  On  the  subject  of  the  use  which  has  been  made  of  Chrysostom's  reason- 
ing, and  the  fallacies  involved  in  the  argument  employed  to  show  that  the  real 
date  of  the  Saviour's  birth  was  known  in  his  day,  see  a  notice  of  Dr.  Jarvis's 
"  Chronological  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Ciiurch,"  in  the  Christian 
Examiner,  fourth  series,  vol.  iii.  pp.  412-414. 


390  FESTIVALS    OP   THE   ANCIENT   CHRISTIANS. 

The  Christians  of  Egypt,  at  a  much  later  period,  are  found 
celebrating  the  nativity  on  the  old  6th  of  January.* 

Various  reasons  have  been  assioned  for  the  selection  of  the 
25th  day  of  December  by  the  Romans.  It  was  clearly  an 
innovation.  The  day  had  never  been  observed  as  a  festival 
of  the  nativity  by  Christians  of  the  East,  where  Christ  had 
his  birth.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  some  of  the  most  mem- 
orable of  the  Heathen  festivals  were  celebrated  at  Rome  at 
this  season  of  the  year ;  and  these  the  Christians  were  fond  of 
attending,  and  could  be  the  more  readily  withdrawn  from 
them  if  they  had  similar  feasts  of  their  own  occurring  at  the 
same  season.  It  is  certain,  too,  that  many  of  the  ceremonies 
and  observances  of  the  Pagan  festivals  were  transferred  to 
those  of  Christians.!  Whether  this,  and  much  else  connected 
with  the  establishment  of  Christian  festivals,  happened  by 
design  or  accident,  is  a  point  we  shall  not  stop  formally  to 
discuss.  It  has  been  argued,  that  the  winter  solstice  (^the 
25th  of  December  in  the  Roman  calendar)  was  chosen  from  a 
beautiful  analogy,  —  the  sun,  which  then  begins  to  return  to 
diffuse  warmth  and  light  over  the  material  creation, J  present- 
ing a  fit  emblem  of  the  rising  of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  to 
cheer  and  bless  the  world  by  his  beams.  The  festival  of  the 
birth  of  the  Sun  (natalis  iSoUs  invicW),  —  a  figurative  expres- 
sion, denoting  his  turning  at  the  tropic,  —  one  of  the  most 
celebrated  festivals  amono;  the  Romans,  observed  at  this 
period,  had  probably  as  much  to  do  in  determining  the  time 
of  the    Christian   festival   as   the    bare    analogy  alluded   to ; 

*  It  is  a  circumstance  wortliy  of  note,  that,  while  the  festival  of  the  Bap- 
tism extended  itself  from  East  to  West,  that  of  Christmas  travelled  from  West 
to  East.  We  have  not  overlooked  the  testimony  of  Augustine,  at  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century  :  but  he  is  too  late  a  writer  to  be  an  authority  for  any  early 
tradition  ;  and,  though  he  mentions  the  festival  of  the  Nativity,  he  does  not 
ascribe  to  it  the  same  importance  as  to  the  two  older  festivals  of  Easter  and 
Whitsunday. 

t  Tlius,  daring  the  Roman  Saturnalia,  or  feast  of  Saturn,  holden  in  memory 
of  the  golden  age  of  equality  and  innocence  under  his  reign,  and  kept  in  the 
time  of  the  Caesars  from  the  17th  to  the  23d  of  December  (seven  days),  "all 
orders  were  devoted  to  mirth  and  feasting";  friends  sent  presents  to  each 
other;  slaves  enjoyed  their  liberty,  and  wore  "  caps  as  badges  of  freedom  "; 
irax  tapers  were  lighted  in  the  temples  ;  and  jests  and  freedom,  and  all  sort* 
of  jollity,  prevailed. 

t  In  the  Northern  Hemisphere,  where  the  date  was  adopted. 


THEIR    ORDER    AND    ORIGIN.  391 

which,  however,  served  well  for  rhetorical  and  poetic  illustra- 
tion. We  find  the  Christian  poet,  Prudentius,  soon  after 
makino-  use  of  it  for  this  pui'pose.  The  fixing  of  the  birth  of 
the  Saviour  at  the  winter  solstice,  when  the  days  begin  to 
increase,  which  would  place  that  of  John  at  the  summer  sol- 
stice, when  they  begin  to  decrease,  also  gratified  the  love  of  a 
mystical  interpretation  of  the  language  of  Scripture.  It  gave, 
as  it  was  discovered,  to  the  affirmation,  "  He  must  increase, 
but  I  must  decrease,"  a  deep-hidden  meaning.  In  the  absence 
of  evidence,  however,  we  will  not  undertake  to  affirm  for 
what  reasons  the  Romans  adopted  the  25th  of  December  as 
the  day  of  the  festival  of  the  Nativity.* 

The  sum  of  the  whole  is,  that,  besides  the  weekly  festival 
of  Sunday,  there  are  two  annual  festivals  (those  of  the  Resur- 
rection of  Christ  and  the  Descent  of  the  Spirit,  or  Easter  and 
Whitsunday),  or  rather  one  festival  of  fifty  days,  including 
both,  which  dates  back  to  an  indefinitely  remote  period  of 
Christian  antiquity ;  that  the  festival  of  the  Baptism  of  Jesus 
came  next,  and,  last,  that  of  his  Nativity  ;  that  this  last  was 
wholly  unknown  for  some  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age  ; 
that  it  is  not  alluded  to  by  any  very  ancient  Christian  writer, 
by  Justin  Martyr  or  Tertullian  ;  that  it  was  unknown  to  the 
learned  Origen,  near  the  middle  of  the  third  century  ;  that 
Clement  of  Alexandria  does  not  mention  the  festival,  and 
speaks  of  the  vain  labor  of  some  antiquaries  who  attempted 
to  fix  the  date  of  the  Saviour's  birth,  who  agreed  in  nothing 
except  in  placing  it  in  the  spring  months  of  April  or  May ; 
that  the  festival  was  first  celebrated  in  January,  in  connection 
with  the  festival  of  the  Manifestation  ;  that  Chrysostom,  who 
represents  the  opinions  of  the  Oriental  Church,  was  ignorant, 
if  not  of  the  festival  itself,  yet  certainly  of  the  present  period 
of  its  celebration,  near  the  end  of  the  fourth  century ;  and, 
finally,  that  the  festival  came  from  the  West,  and  not,  like  all 
the  more  ancient  festivals,  from  the  East. 

The  true  explanation  of  the  origin  of  both  the  more  ancient 
festivals  (Easter  and  Whitsunday)  is,  that  they  were  Jewish 
feasts,  —  continued  among  the  Jewish  Christians,  and  after- 
wards, it  is  impossible  to  say  when,  adopted  by  the  Gentile 
*  See  Beausobre,  Histoire  de  Manich€e  et  du  Manich€isme,  ii.  619,  etc. 


392  FESTIVALS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    CHRISTIANS. 

believers  ;  Christ  having  consecrated  them  anew,  the  one  by 
his  death  and  resurrection,  and  the  other  by  the  outpouring  of 
the  Spirit  upon  tlie  Apostles.  Neither  of  them  was  instituted 
by  Christians  ;  neither  of  them  originated  in  purely  Christian 
ideas,  as  is  shown  by  the  testimony  of  Origen,  already  referred 
to,  and  in  confirmation  of  which  we  might  adduce  a  multitude 
of  passages  from  the  early  Christian  writers  to  the  same 
point.*  But  there  was  in  existence  among  the  Jews  no  festi- 
val on  which  Christmas  could  be  ingrafted ;  and  this,  and  the 
fact  that  it  was  not  customary  in  the  early  ages  to  celebrate 
the  birthdays,  but  only  the  deaths,  of  distinguished  individuals, 

*  We  give  the  following  extract  from  the  Manicliean  Faiistus  partly  as  well 
illustrating  the  Christian  idea  of  worsliip  at  the  time  the  Manieheans  were 
separated  from  the  Church,  in  the  third  century  ;  and  partly  because  we  wish 
to  say  a  word  or  two  of  the  Manieheans  in  connection  with  the  festival  of 
Christmas.  The  passage  is  preserved  by  Augustine,  in  his  reply  to  Faustus 
the  Manicliean.  "  The  Pagans,"  says  Faustus,  "  think  to  worship  the  Divin- 
ity by  altars,  temples,  images,  victims,  and  incense.  I  differ  much  from  them 
in  this,  who  regard  myself,  if  I  am  worthy,  as  the  reasonable  temple  of  God, 
the  living  image  of  his  living  Majesty.  I  accept  Jesus  Christ  as  his  image  ; 
the  mind,  imbued  with  good  knowledge  and  disciplined  in  virtue,  I  regard  as 
the  true  altar  ;  and  the  honor  to  be  rendered  to  the  Divinity,  and  the  sacrifices 
to  be  offered,  I  place  in  prayers  alone,  and  those  pure  and  simple." —  Contra 
Faust.,  lib.  XX.  c.  3. 

We  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  it  noticed  as  an  argument  for  the  late 
origin  of  the  festival  of  the  Nativity,  that  the  Manieheans,  who  were  separated 
from  the  Church,  as  we  have  said,  in  the  third  centurj',  did  not  observe  it, 
though  they  observed  both  the  old  feasts  of  Easter  and  Pentecost.  Yet  the 
argument  has  some  weight,  if  any  subsidiary  evidence  were  needed  in  a 
matter  so  plain.  In  their  forms  as  well  as  their  general  idea  of  worship,  the 
Manieheans  retained  much  of  the  old  simplicity  ;  and,  from  the  time  of  their 
being  excluded  from  the  Church,  they  became  an  independent  witness  for  its 
more  ancient  customs.  They  allowed  of  no  "  sensible  aids  "  to  worship, 
which  among  them  consisted,  like  the  old  Christian  wc<-ship,  in  prayers  and 
singing,  to  which  were  added  reading  from  their  sacred  books,  and  an  ad- 
dress, or  exhortation ;  and  they  preserved  the  old  congregational  discij)lire. 
They  had,  as  we  have  just  seen,  neither  temples  nor  altars  nor  statues  ;  they 
baptized  both  adults  and  infants  ;  they  did  not  offer  prayers  to  the  dead,  and 
rendered  to  the  martyrs  only  those  honors  which  were  commonly  rendered 
them  at  the  end  of  the  second  century  ;  they  celebrated  the  Eucharist,  though 
substituting  water  for  wine,  the  use  of  which  was  forbidden  b}'  their  ascetic 
principles ;  the  festivals  they  celebrated  with  the  simplicity  of  olden  time. 
With  the  exception  of  the  Avine  at  the  Eucharist,  the  omission  of  which  is 
'eadily  explained,  we  have  here  as  faithful  a  picbure  of  Christian  worship,  and 
the  ideas  connected  with  it,  in  the  early  part  of  the  third  century,  as  could 
well  be  drawn.  The  entire  absence  of  every  trace  of  the  festival  of  the  Na- 
tivity only  renders  it  the  more  exact. 


CHRISTMAS.  393 

accounts  for  its  late  origin.  The  "  Natalia  "  of  the  martyrs 
were  kept  on  the  anniversary  of  their  death,  —  their  birth 
into  an  immortal  existence. 

We  have  no  complaint  to  make  of  the  selection  of  the  25th 
of  December,  as  the  day  for  commemorating  the  birth  of  the 
Saviour.  It  is  as  good  as  any  other  day  ;  it  being  understood, 
as  we  suppose  it  is,  by  every  one  even  moderately  acquainted 
with  the  writings  of  Christian  antiquity,  that  the  true  date  of 
the  nativity  is  irrecoverably  lost.*  For  ourselves,  we  like  this 
festival  of  Christmas,  and  would  let  it  stand  where  it  is,  and 
where  it  has  stood  ever  since  the  days  of  Chrysostom  at  least, 
—  a  period  of  more  than  fourteen  centuries.  It  matters  not 
in  the  least  that  we  are  ignorant  of  the  real  date  of  the  Sav- 
iour's birth.  We  can  be  just  as  grateful  for  his  appearance 
in  the  world  as  we  could  be,  did  we  know  the  precise  day  or 
moment  of  his  entrance  into  it.  Of  what  consequence  is  it  for 
us  to  know  the  particular  day,  or  even  the  year,  when  this 
hght  first  shone  upon  the  earth,  since  we  know  that  it  has 
arisen,  and  we  enjoy  its  lustre  and  warmth  ?  Of  just  as  little 
consequence,  for  all  practical  purposes,  as  for  the  voyager  on 
one  of  our  majestic  rivers  to  be  informed  of  the  exact  spot  in 
the  remote  wilds  on  which  the  stream  takes  its  rise,  since  his 
little  bark  is  borne  gayly  on  by  its  friendly  waters  ;  or  for  any 
of  us,  if  our  affairs  have  been  long  prosperous,  to  be  able  to 
tell  how  or  when,  to  the  fraction  of  a  minute,  our  prosperity 
commenced.  If  we  have  been  in  adversity,  and  light  has 
broken  in  upon  our  gloom,  and  continues  to  shine  upon  us,  it 
imports  little  whether  or  not  we  can  fix  on  the  exact  point  of 
time  at  which  the  clouds  began  to  break  and  scatter.  Just  so 
with  this  Star  of  Bethlehem,  which  "  shines  o'er  sin  and  sor- 
row's night "  :  the  exact  moment  at  which  its  beams  began  to 
be  visible  over  the  hills  and  valleys  of  Judea  is  not  a  subject 
about  which  we  need  perplex  ourselves.  No  royal  historiogra- 
pher Avas  present  to  chronicle  the  Saviour's  birth  ;  yet,  if  his 
spirit  be  in  our  hearts,  we  can,  if  we  approve  the  observance, 
commemorate    his   advent,  with  all  the    kindlings  of  devout 

*  "  I  do  not  believe,"  says  Beausobre  (t.  ii.  p.  692),  "  tliat  the  evangelists 
themselves  knevir  it.  It  is  evident  that  St.  Luke,  who  tells  us  that  he  becfan 
to  be  about  thirty  years  of  aye,  when  he  was  baptized,  did  not  know  his  precise 


B94  FESTIVALS    OP    THE    ANCIENT    CHRISTIANS. 

affection  and  gratitude,  —  at  our  homes,  or  in  our  liouses  of 
worship,  where  we  have  so  often  met  to  seek  comfort  and 
strength  from  his  words,  —  on  any  day  which  the  piety  of  past 
ages  has  set  apart  for  so  holy  a  purpose. 

One  further  remark  we  would  make.  We  see,  in  the  order 
in  which  the  festivals  arose,  important  testimony  to  the  truth 
of  Christian  history.  It  could  hardly  have  been  different,  the 
facts  being  supposed  true.  Christmas  could  not  have  preceded 
in  its  origin  the  other  festivals  founded  on  the  events  of  the 
resurrection  and  exaltation  of  Jesus,  without  which  there  could 
have  been  no  spiritual  Christianity.  It  must  almost  of  neces- 
sity follow  them,  and  grow  up  from  obscure  beginnings,  as  it 
did,  out  of  the  gratitude  and  love  of  Christians,  making  it  diffi- 
cult to  trace  its  origin.  All  this,  we  say,  was  natural,  and 
confirms  the  truth  of  Christian  history.  Reading  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  one  would  have  been 
surprised  to  find  a  festival  of  the  birth  of  Christ  existing  from 
the  first.  But  we  are  not  surprised  at  finding  that  the  resur- 
rection (without  which,  according  to  the  Apostle,  his  preaching 
and  the  faith  of  Christians  would  be  vain)  and  the  descent  of 
the  Spirit  (which  was,  in  truth,  the  beginning  of  spiritual 
Christianity)  were  both  early  celebrated,  as  we  know  they 
were.  It  Avas  Christ  risen  and  glorified  of  wdiich  these  old 
believers  chiefly  thought,  —  the  Redeemer  from  sin,  the  Leader 
in  the  way  of  immortality,  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  — 
not  the  infant  Christ. 

With  respect  to  the  uncertainty  of  the  date  of  Jesus's  birth, 
Di;.  Milman,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  London,  thus  expresses  him- 
self: "The  year  in  which  Christ  was  born  is  still  contested. 
There  is  still  more  uncertainty  concerning  the  time  of  the 
year,  which  learned  men  are  still  laboring  to  determine. 
Where  there  is  and  can  be  no  certainty,  it  is  the  wisest 
course  to  acknowledge  our  ignorance,  and  not  to  claim  the 
authority  of  historic  truth  for  that  which  is  pux*ely  conjectural. 
The  two  ablest  modern  writers  who  have  investigated  the 
chronology  of  the  life  of  Christ  —  Dr.  Burton  and  Mr.  Gres- 
well  —  have  come  to  opposite  conclusions  :  one  contending  for 
the  spring,  the  other  for  the  autumn.  Even  if  the  argument 
of  either  had  any  solid  ground  to  rest  on,  it  would  be  difficult 


ANCIENT    FESTIVALS    NOT    TRINITARIAN.  395 

(would  it  be  worth  while  ?)  to  extirpate  the  traditionary  belief 

so  beautifully  embodied  in  Milton's  hymn  :  — 

'  It  was  the  winter  wild 
When  tlie  Heaven-born  child,'  &c. 

Were  the  point  of  the  least  importance,  we  should,  no  doubt, 
have  known  more  about  it."  * 

The  reflection  of  the  learned  Dean  is  judicious.  The  day 
and  the  year,  as  before  said,  matter  not.  We  are  not  so  much 
Christians  of  the  "  letter"  as  to  think  them  of  any  importance. 
Let  them  not  be  contended  about.  Let  Christmas  stand, 
where  it  has  so  long  stood,  to  be  observed  in  honor  of  the 
"  Heaven-born  child."  As  intelligent  Christians,  however,  it 
is  well  to  know  the  "  historic  truth,"  and  not  put  certainty  for 
uncertainty  in  a  matter  of  this  sort. 

There  is  no  Trinitarianism  connected  with  any  of  the  an 
cient  festivals.  Nothing  could  be  further  removed  from  Trini- 
tarianism than  the  simple  ideas  on  which  the  Easter  festival 
was  founded,  —  "dead,  buried,  and,  the  third  day,  rose  again." 
"  The  Logos  doctrine  "  (introduced  by  the  learned  converts 
who  came  fresh  from  their  Heathen  studies),  associated  in 
thought  with  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  evidently 
occasioned  some  embarrassment  in  the  minds  of  the  Fathers 
who  received  it ;  believing,  as  they  generally  did  for  a  long 
time,  that  the  whole  Christ  suffered.  The  simple  faith  of  the 
early  believers  was  not  attended  with  any  difficulties  of  this 
sort. 

The  effiision  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  "  pouring  it  out,"  as  the 
very  terms  exclude  personality,  is  not  a  Trinitarian  idea ;  and 
the  observance  of  the  festival  of  Pentecost,  therefore,  in  early 
times,  affords  no  evidence  of  the  Trinitarianism  of  those  times, 
but  was  quite  compatible  with  the  opinion  which  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  late  in  the  fourth  century,  says  was  entertained  by 
some  in  his  day,  —  that  the  Spirit  was  simply  "  a  mode  of 
divine  operation";  some  others  calling  it  "God  himself"; 
some,  "  a  creature  of  God  "  ;  and  some  not  knowing  what  to 
believe  on  the  subject.  It  made  no  difference,  so  far  as  the 
celebration  of  this  festival  was  concerned,  which  of  these 
views  prevailed. 

*  History  of  Christianity,  p.  57,  ed.  New  York,  1851. 


396  FESTIVALS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   CUEISTIANS. 

As  to  Christmas,  —  the  birth-festival,  —  that,  no  more  than 
the  festival  of  the  Resurrection  or  the  festival  of  the  Spirit, 
recognizes  a  Trinity.  It  would  be  difficult  to  extract  the 
Trinity  from  the  angelic  song,  "  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest, 
and  on  earth  peace,  good-vv^ill  to  men."  We  may,  therefore, 
add  these  three  festivals  —  two  of  them  earlier,  and  one  later 
—  to  the  monuments  of  Christian  antiquity  already  referred 
to,  as  bearing  no  testimony  to  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity. 

After  what  has  been  said  in  the  foregoing  pages,  we  are 
prepared  to  re-assert,  in  conclusion,  that  the  modern  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  not  found  in  any  document  or  relic  belonging 
to  the  Church  of  the  first  three  centuries.  Letters,  art,  usage, 
theology,  worship,  creed,  hymn,  chant,  doxology,  ascription, 
commemorative  rite,  and  festive  observance,  so  far  as  any  re- 
mains or  any  record  of  them  are  preserved,  coming  down  from 
early  times,  are,  as  regards  this  doctrine,  an  absolute  blank. 
They  testify,  so  far  as  they  testify  at  all,  to  the  supremacy  of 
the  Father,  the  only  true  God ;  and  to  the  inferior  and  derived 
nature  of  the  Son.  There  is  nowhere  among  these  remains  a 
co-equal  Trinity.  The  cross  is  there  ;  Christ  is  there  as  the 
Good  Shepherd,  the  Father's  hand  placing  a  crown,  or  victor's 
wreath,  on  his  head  ;  but  no  undivided  Three,  —  co-equal, 
infinite,  self-existent,  and  eternal.  This  was  a  conception  to 
which  the  age  had  not  arrived.     It  was  of  later  origin. 


INDEX. 


INDEX. 


A. 

Aetians,  the,  273. 

Alexsmclor,  Bishop  of  Alexandria  ;  his 
conduct  toward  Arius,  241.  Blamed 
by  Constantine,  251.  His  death, 
263. 

Alexander,  Bishop  of  Constantinople, 
opposes  Arius,  267.  His  prayer, 
268. 

Alexandria  at  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  116. 

Alexandrian  Catechetical  School, 
qualification  for  teachers  in,  118, 
liy.  Christian  theology  originated 
in,  119.  Contest  in,  between  the 
Pagan  faitli  and  the  Christian,  119. 

Ambrose  of  Milan  introduces  the  an- 
tii)honic  singing  into  the  West,  345. 
A  writer  of  iiymns,  but  not  the  au- 
thor of  tlie  "  Te  Ueum,"  853. 

Ambrose,  Origen's  philosophical  con- 
vert, 160.  Devotes  his  wealth  to 
the  purchase  of  manuscripts  for 
Origen's  use,  160.  Origen  calls  him 
his  "  work-driver,"  160.  Death, 
168. 

Ammonius  Saccas,  a  Platonic  philoso- 
piier,  156,  157. 

Angels,  honor  due  to,  according  to 
Justin,  76. 

Anomoeans,  the,  273. 

Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  the,  did  not  be- 
lieve in  the  equality  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit,  70,  75.  How  their 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  differed  from 
the  modern,  2o9,  240,  335  et  seqq. 

Anthropomorphitic  representations  of 
the  Trinity,  374,  375. 

Anthropomorphitic  language  of  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  59. 

Antioch,  second  council  of,  held  in  op- 
positi(m  to  Paul  of  Samosata  about 
A.  D.  265,  ri'jects  the  term  "  consub- 
stantial,"  283. 

Antioch,  council  of,  a.  d.  341,  declares 
against  the  Nicene  faith,  and  rejects 
the  term  "  consubstantial,"  339. 

Antiquity  of  the  Christian  faith,  126. 


Apollinaris,  father  and  son,  turn   the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  into  verse, 
356,  note. 
Apostles'  Creed,  the,  315-341.     The 
Apostles'  Creed  not  the   primitive 
one,  and  not  made  by  the  Apostles, 
316.      Testimonies  of  the  learned, 
316.     Fabulous  account  of  its  origin 
by  Rufinus,  317,  318.     No  mention 
of  it   by   the  early  Fathers,  or  by 
councils,  318.     Not  known  to  Ter- 
tullian  about  A.  D.  200,  320.     Older 
creeds,  319,  320.     Councils  of  Epiie- 
sus  and  Chalcedon  forbade  the  use 
of  any  creed   but   the   Nicene,    as 
augmented  hy  the  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople, 320,  321.      lioman  and 
Oriental  creeds  and  thatof  Aquileia 
compared,  321,  322.      Additions   to 
the  Apostles'  Creed,  322.      When  it 
first  appeared  in  its  present  form, 
324.     Not  Trinitarian,  324. 
Apostolic  Fathers,  3-20.     General  re- 
marks as  to  date  and  authorship  of 
writings  attributed  to  them,  19.    Of 
little  value  as  authorities,  21.     Jus- 
tin's doctrine  of  the  Logos  not  found 
in   tliem,   19,  20,  64,  69,    note.     See 
Barnabas,  Clement  of  Rome,  Her- 
nias, Ignatius,  Polycarp. 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  not  of  Apos- 
tolical origin,  324-326.     When  first 
reterred    to,   324,  325.     Tiieir    age 
matter  of  conjecture,  326.    C'atholic 
authorities  lor  their  rejection,  326. 
Protestant,   327.     Views   of   recent 
German  critics,  328.     Their  Arian 
complexion,  328.     Their  doctrine  : 
the   Son   inferior,   328,   329.      The 
Spirit,  329.     Not  Trinitarian,  330. 
Their  probable  origin,  330.     Canons 
of  the  Apostles,  324,  328. 
Aquileia,  creed  of,  compared  with  the 
lioman  and  Oriental,  321,  322.    Not 
Trinitarian,  324. 
Arianism,  origin  of,  and  controversy 
relating  to,  239  et  seqq.    Decision  of 
the  Council  of  Nice,  259-261.     Suc- 
cess and  decline  of  Arianism  aftei 


400 


INDEX. 


the  death  of  Arius,  273,  274.  The 
wlnle  world  Ariaii,  273.  Arian 
councils,  273,  274.  Arianisrn  long 
survives  in  the  West,  274.  Influ- 
ence of  tlie  ladies  on  its  fortunes, 
274,  note. 

A.riniinuin  (Kimini),  council  of,  de- 
clares against  the  Nicene  taitli,  340. 

Aristide's,  a  Cliristian  apologist,  21,  22. 

Arius  and  the  Arian  controversy,  239- 
289.  Approach  of  the  storm,  239. 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  admitted  the 
inferiority  of  the  Son  to  the  Father, 
239,  240.  Their  language  not  Trin- 
itarian in  the  modern  sense,  240. 
Incidents  in  the  life  of  Arius,  240. 
Origin  of  the  controversy,  241.  Soz- 
onien's  account,  241.  Account  of 
Socrates  and  Tlieodoret,  241,  242. 
Alexander  the  aggressor,  241.  Per- 
sonal appearance  and  character  of 
Arius,     242-244.      His    popularity, 

243,  244.  Course  pursued  by  Al- 
exander, 245.  Arius  expelled  the 
city,  245.  Retires  to  Palestine  ;  re- 
ception there,  246.  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  espouses  his  cause,  246. 
Also  Eusebius  of  Niconiedia,  247. 
Letter  of  Arius  to  Alexander,  248. 
Activity  of  Alexander,  249.  War 
of  words,  249.  Constantine  at- 
tempts to  mediate,  251.  Council  of 
Nice,  251,  252.  Opinions  of  Arius, 
and  their  relation  to  the  doctrines  of 
preceding  ages,  252-255,  301.  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  council,  256.  En- 
trance of  the  emperor,  and  his  ap- 
pearance, 257,  258.  The  creed,  259. 
Anathemas,  260.  Arius  and  his 
friends  anathematized,  261.  His 
exile,  262.  Constantine  is  softened 
towards  him,  263,  264.  His  return 
to  Alexandria,  265.  Appears  at 
Constantinople,  and  satisfies  the 
emperor  of  his  orthodoxy,  267.  To 
be  admitted  to  communion,  268. 
His  sudden  death,  268.  His  intel- 
lectual  and   moral  character,    242, 

244,  269.  His  writings,  270.  A 
hymnologist,  353.  Success  and  de- 
cline of  Arianisrn,  273,  274.  The 
friends  and  associates  of  Arius,  275, 
276.    Athanasius,  276-281. 

Arnobius,  235.  Holds  the  Son  to  be 
distinct  and  inferior,  235.  Uncer- 
tain whether  he  mentions  the  Spirit, 
235. 

Artemon,  189.  Asserts  that  the  Logos 
doctrine  was  recent,  189,  190. 
Claims  to  hold  the  primitive  doc- 
trine, 189, 190. 

Artemonites,  the,  190,  191. 


Artistic  representations  of  the  Trini- 
ty, 360-376.  Bear  testimony  to  its 
late  origin,  360.  No  earlv  group 
of  the  trinity,  360,  361,  374.  The 
Father,  how  represented,  361,  362. 
Father  and  Son,  363.  Earlv  por- 
traits of  the  Son,  364,  365,  366. 
Later  portraits,  365,  366,  367.  The 
glorv,  or  nimbus,  in  symbolic  art, 
368-372.  Forms  of,  370,  371.  Forms 
of  the  cross,  371,  note.  Use  and 
significance  of  the  nimbus,  371,  372. 
Representations  of  the  Spirit,  373, 
374.  Anthropomorphitic  Trinity  ; 
geometric  illustrations,  374,  375. 
The  Pope's  prohibition,  375.  No 
Trinitarianism  in  any  artistic  re- 
mains of  the  earlier  ages,  376. 

Ascension,  the.  Festival  of,  385,  note. 

Athanasian  Creed,  the,  not  written  by 
Athanasius,  2Bl,  341.  Of  uncer- 
tain date  and  origin,  341,  342.  Was 
composed  after  the  mi(ldle  of  the 
fifth  century,  341.  Ascribed  to 
various  authors,  341. 

Athanasius  at  the  Council  of  Nice, 
256.  Becomes  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria, 263.  Charges  against  him, 
263,  265.  Condemned  and  deposed 
by  the  Council  of  Tyre,  265.  Ex- 
iled, 267.  Returns  to  Alexandria, 
and  again  flees,  277.  Reestablished 
in  his  see,  and  again  compelled  to 
leave,  278.  His  death,  writings, 
and  character,  279-281.  His  expla- 
nation of  the  sense  in  which  the 
term  "  consubstantial"  was  used  by 
the  Council  of  Nice,  283.  Not  the 
autlKJr  of  the  creed  which  passes 
under  his  name,  281,  341. 

Athenagoras,  100,  101.  His  works, 
100.  He  holds  the  Father  su- 
preme, 100.  His  doctrines  as  to 
the  Son,  100.  The  Logos,  100,  101, 
note.   The  Holy  Spirit,  101. 

Athenodorus,  a  pupil  of  Origen's,  165. 

Atonement,  the  :  Justin  no  advocate 
for  the  modern  popular  doctrine  of, 
85.  Views  of  Lactantius  as  to,  238  ; 
of  Origen,  193.  Bunsen's  state- 
ment as  to  the  doctrine  of  Origen 
and  the  Fathers  before  him  in  re- 
gard to  the  atonement,  193. 

Aureole,  the,  368. 


B. 


Baptism,  Justin's  account  of,  86. 

Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  17-19.  Its  date 
and  origin,  17.  Not  of  great  value, 
18.  Recognizes  the  preexistence  of 
the  Saviour,  18.    But  maintains  the 


INDEX. 


401 


supremacy  of  the  Father,  18.  Con- 
tains no  trace  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Logos,  18.  Nor  of  that  of  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Spirit,  18. 

Bardesanes,  an  early  writer  of  hymns, 
349. 

Baronius  pronounces  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions  spurious,  326. 

Barrow,  Dr.,  says  it  is  not  known  who 
composed  the  Apostles'  Creed,  316. 

Basil  could  only  gradually  teach  tiie 
deity  of  tlie  Holy  S])irit  in  his 
church,  287.  Admits  that  the  old 
Fathers  were  silent  respecting  it, 
339.  They  who  acknowledged  its 
divinity  condemned  for  introducing 
novel  dogmas,  339. 

Bellarmine  pronounces  the  Apostoli- 
cal Constitutions  spurious,  326. 

Beryllus,  the  Monarcliian,  and  his 
opinions,  192.  He  was  a  writer  of 
hymns,  350,  351. 

Brucker  says  that  the  early  Fathers 
were  tainted  with  Platonism,  65. 
That  thoy  taught  the  inferiority  of 
the  Son,  70. 

Buddeus  says  the  Apostles'  Creed  is 
not  to  be  attributed  to  the  Apostles, 
317. 

Bunsen  on  the  recently  discovered 
Syriac  version  of  the  Ignatian 
Epistles,  14,  note.  On  the  Appen- 
dix to  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  94, 
note.  The  Confession  of  Hippoly- 
tus,  182,  note.  Ancient  psalmody, 
348,  349. 

Butler,  Charles,  adverts  to  the  fact 
that  the  Apostles'  Creed  was  ])ro- 
scribed  by  two  general  councils, 
821,  note. 


Canons  of  the  Apostles,  the,  324,  328. 

Catacombs,  the,  and  the  inscriptions 
there,  113. 

"  Catholic,"  when  the  term  first  ap- 
peared in  creeds,  324. 

Celsus,  Origcn's  work  against,  176. 
Intellectual  character  of  Celsus,  177. 

Christ.  How  first  represented  in  art, 
361.  Early  portraits  of,  364,  365, 
366.  Later  portraits,  365,  366,  367. 
Time  of  his  birth  unknown,  388, 
894.     See.  also  Logos,  Son. 

Christians,  the  common  and  unedu- 
cated of  the  early  Church,  112-114. 

Christmas.     See  Festivals. 

Chrysostom  involved  in  the  Origenist 
controversy,  211.  Death  of,  211. 
His  nocturnal  musical  processions, 
857 

26 


Church,  ancient,  hymnology   of  the. 
343-359. 

Churches,   when    first    erected,   343, 
note. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  his  times, 
115-150.  Time  of  Clement,  116. 
Notices  of  his  life,  116.  His  teach- 
ers, 117,  118.  Becomes  head  of  the 
Catechetical  School  at  Alexandria, 
118.  Disappears  from  history,  118. 
An  eclectic,  118.  Necessity  of  learn- 
ing in  the  teachers  of  the  Alexan- 
drian School,  118.  Clement's  writ- 
ings, 119.  His  "  Hypotyposes,"  119, 
note.  "Hortatory  Address,"  120. 
Mode  of  defending  Christianity,  120. 
Clement's  theology,  122  el  seqq. 
Does  not  ascribe  to  the  Son  a  per- 
sonal existence  from  eternity,  123. 
The  Logos  and  the  Son,  124,  125. 
Clement  asserts  the  inferiority  of 
the  Son  in  strong  terms,  124,  125. 
Attempts  to  separate  the  idea  of 
time  from  the  generation  of  the 
Son,  126,  note.  Antiquity  of  the 
Christian  faith,  126.  Ascribes  in- 
spiration to  Plato  and  the  philoso- 
phers, 127.  Influence  of  sculpture 
among  the  Greeks,  128.  Man  not 
absolutely  depraved  by  nature,  129. 
Clement's  "  I'sedagogue,"  130.  His 
precepts  of  living,  130.  Lite  in 
Alexandria  at  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century,  132.  Food,  wine, 
133.  Furniture,  dress,  136.  Con- 
vivial entertainments,  136.  Gar- 
lands and  ointments,  137.  The  la- 
dies of  Alexandria,  138.  The  "  fine 
gentlemen,"  139.  Clement's  "  Stro- 
mata,"  131,  141.  Subjects  treated, 
142.  Clement's  idea  of  the  true  Gnos- 
tic, or  perfect  Christian.  144-149. 
The  heretical  Gnostics,  149.  Hymn 
attributed  to  Clement,  120,  3-50. 

Clement  of  Rome,  4-9.  The  first 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  attrib- 
uted to  him,  4-8.  May  be  accepted 
as  mostly  genuine,  4.  Opinions  of 
writers  of  authority  on  this  point,  4. 
Its  date,  4,  5.  Its  character,  con- 
tents, and  doctrine,  5-8.  Has  no 
traces  of  tiie  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
or  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos, 
5.  Distinction  between  God  and 
Christ  preserved,  5-8.  Opinion  of 
Photius,  7.  Preexistence  of  the  Son 
not  distinctly  asserted  in  the  Epistle, 
13.  Its  general  character,  8.  Sec- 
ond Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  and 
other  writings  ascribed  to  Clement 
of  Rome,  not  genuine,  9. 
Codex  Sinaiticus,  the,  10. 


402 


INDEX. 


Constantia,  the  sister  of  Constantine, 
befrieiKls  Arias,  263,  204. 

Constantine  attempts  to  mediate  be- 
tween tlie  parties  in   Arius's  case, 

251.  Calls  tiie  Couneil  of  Nice,  251, 

252.  Enters  the  council,  257.  Eu- 
sebius's  description  of  the  spectacle 
presented,  258.  Batiishes  Athana- 
sius,  267.  Is  satisfied  with  Arius's 
orthodoxy,  267.  Orders  Ale.xander 
to  aduiit  liim  to  communion,  268. 
Receives  Arian  baptism  in  his  last 
ilhiess,  276.  His  belief,  276,  note. 
Constantine  and  Eusebius  of  Cuesa- 
rea,  299. 

Constantinople,  council  of,  a.  n.  381, 
adopted  tlie  Nicene  Creed  with  an 
additional  clause  respecting  the 
Holy  Spirit,  287,  288. 

Constantius,  an  Arian,  273. 

"  Consubstantial,"  the  term,  how  used 
by  the  Fathers  of  Nice,  260,  282-285, 
334.  Rejected  by  the  second  Coun- 
cil of  Antiocii,  held  in  opposition  to 
Paul  of  Samosata,  283.  Later  coun- 
cils which  rejected  it,  and  declared 
against  the  Nicene  faith,  339,  340. 

Creeds,  origin  of,  315.  Creed  of  Cyp- 
rian, 320.  Of  Gregory  Thaumatur- 
gus,  320.  Of  Irenreus,  319,  320. 
Of  Origen,  320.  Of  Tertullian,  109, 
320.  The  old  Roman,  the  Oriental, 
and  that  of  Aquileia,  compared,  321, 
822.  See  also  Apostles'  Creed,  Atha- 
nasian  Creed,  Lucian. 

Creed-making,  evils  of,  288. 

Crescens,  the  Cynic,  hostile  to  Justin 
and  the  Christians,  28,  29. 

Cross,  forms  of,  in  art,  371,  note. 

Cudworth  asserts  the  Platonism  of  the 
early  Fathers,  65.  Says  that  they 
generally  taught  tlae  inferiority  of 
the  Son,'  70. 

Cureton,  Rev.  W.,  his  edition  of  the 
Syriac  version  of  the  Epistles  of 
Ignatius,  14,  note. 

Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  227. 
Held  the  Son  to  be  distinct  from  the 
Fatlier  and  inferior,  227-229.  Con- 
founds the  Spirit  witii  the  Logos, 
227,  228.  Distinguishes  the  Spirit 
from  the  Logos,  and  makes  it  infe- 
rior to  Christ,  228.  Baptismal  creed 
of,  320. 


D. 


DaiM  thinks  the  Apostolical  Consti- 
tutions written  after  the  Council  of 
Nice,  327. 

Demetrius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  hos- 
tile to  Origen,  162.    Persecutes  him 


and  drives  him  from  Alexandria 
163.     His  death,  103,  164. 

Demons,  Justin  Martyr's  account  of, 
43. 

Didron,  Iconographie  Chretienne  by, 
360. 

Diognetus,  Epistle  to.  See  Epistle  to 
Diognetus. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria  and  his  opin- 
ions, 218-220.  Calls  the  Son  a  creat- 
ure, diflering  in  substance  from  tl:e 
Father,  218-  What  Huet  and  Basil 
say  of  his  doctrines,  ooO,  337,  339. 

Du  Pin  holds  that  the  Apostles  drew  up 
no  form  of  faith.  317.  Thinks  that 
the  Apostolical  Constitutions  sliould 
be  referred  to  the  third  or  fourth 
century,  and  that  they  have  been 
much  altered,  326.  Says  the  Ath- 
anasian  Creed  was  not  written  by 
Athanasius,  341. 


E. 


Easter,  381-384. 

Ephrem,  the  Syrian,  his  hymns,  350. 

Epiphanius  engages  in  the  Origenist 
controversy,  21 1.  Speaks  of  a  work 
called  the  ''  Apostolical  Constitu- 
tions," 324,  325.  Not  certain  that 
our  present  "  Constitutions  "  is  the 
same,  325. 

Epiphany,  the.  Festival  of,  386,  387. 

Epistle  to  Diognetus,  92-94.  Probably 
not  the  work  of  Justin,  92.  Opin- 
ions of  the  learned,  92.  Its  prob- 
ble  date,  92.  Of  great  value  and 
interest,  92.  Teaches  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  Father  and  the  subor- 
dination of  the  Son,  93,  94.  No 
allusion  to  the  Spirit,  93,  94.  The 
writer's  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  93. 
The  "Apiiendix"  probably  a  spuri- 
ous addition,  94.  Bunsen  on  the 
authorship  of  the  "  Appendix,"  94, 
note. 

Eusebius  of  Cajsarea,  290-314.  Inci- 
dents of  his  life,  290,  291.  His 
friendship  for  Pamphilus,  291.  His 
picture  of  the  happiness  of  Chris- 
tians after  persecution  had  ceased, 
293.  Rebuilding  of  churches,  294. 
Church  of  Tyre,  294.  Eusebius 
made  Bishop  of  Ctesarea,  294.  His 
studies,  2',t4.  Takes  a  prominent 
part  in  the  Arian  controversy,  294. 
Offers  a  creed,  295.  Subscribes  the 
creed  of  the  council,  295.  Mean- 
ing of  the  term  "  consubstantial,'' 
260,  296.  Eusebius  defended  from 
the  charge  of  insincerity,  296.  His 
want  of  firmness,  297.     Refuses  to 


INDEX. 


403 


accept  the  see  of  Antiocb,  298.  The 
emperor's  esteem  for  him,  299.  His 
deatli  and  cliaracter,  300  His  theo- 
logieal  opinions,  300.  Held  tlie  old 
doctrine  of  the  inferiority  of  the 
Son,  302-305.  No  consubstantialist, 
302.  Held  tliat  the  Spirit  was  made 
by  the  Son,  303.  Significance  of 
his  belief  305.  His  writings,  306. 
Credit  to  which  he  is  entitled  as  an 
historian,  306  et  spqq.  Charge  of 
suppression  of  truth,  306.  Of  de- 
fending "  pious  frauds,"  307.  Value 
of  his  authorities,  308-312.  Con- 
temporary events,  312.  Different 
value  of  his  materials,  313.  His 
use  of  them,  313.  Artistic  merit 
of  his  work,  313,  314. 
Eusebius  of  Niconiedia,  a  pupil  of  Lu- 
cian's,  224.  Espouses  the  cause  of 
Arius,  247.  Subscribes  the  Nicene 
Creed,  261.  But  continues  to  teach 
Arian  doctrine  and  is  exiled,  261. 
Further  notice  of,  275. 


F. 


Faith,  the  one  unchangeable  rule  of, 
according  to  TertuUia^n,  109,  320. 

Fasts  among  the  early  Christians, 
381-383. 

Father,  the,  how  represented  in  art, 
361,  362. 

Fathers,  the,  decline  of  reverence  for, 
33.  Arguments  and  manner  of  writ- 
ing, 120,  121.  Their  chiims  to  our 
respect,  33,  140.  The  Fathers  be- 
fore and  after  the  council  of  Nice, 
how  they  differed,  285.  Difference 
in  the  mode  of  defending  their  doc- 
trines, 285.  Merits  as  expositors, 
331.  Terms  used  by,  239,  240, 
332-335.  Not  used  in  the  modern 
sense,  240,  333.  The  early  Fathers 
not  Trinitarian  in  the  modern  sense, 
70,  75,  335-341. 

Festivals  of  the  ancient  Christians, 
377-391).   Christmas  n(jt  the  earliest, 

377.  Weekly   festival    of   Sunday, 

378.  A  day  of  joy,  378-381.  to 
fast  or  kneel  in  prayer  unlawful, 
378.  Sunday  not  called  the  Sab- 
bath, 379.  Oldest  annual  festival 
that  of  the  Resurrection,  or  Easter, 
381.  Preparatory  fasting,  381.  Time 
of  it,  how  determined,  383.  Pente- 
cost, or  Wliitsunday,  the  next  fes- 
tival in  order  of  time,  384.  No 
other  festivals  known  to  Tertullian, 
385.  No  others  known  to  the 
Church  in  tlie  time  of  Origen,  386. 
Baptism,   or    F^piphany,    386,    387. 


Christmas  first  celebrated  on  the 
sixth  of  January,  388,  389.  Clem- 
ent's account,  388.  Afterwards  on 
the  twenty-fifth  of  December,  389. 
When  adopted  at  Rome,  389.  In 
the  East,  389.  Chrysostom's  testi- 
mony, 389.  Reasons  for  adopting 
the  twenty-fifth  of  December,  390. 
The  late  origin  of  Christmas  ex- 
plained, 392.  Not  observed  by  the 
Manicheans,  392,  note.  Not  impor- 
tant to  know  the  day,  393.  Re- 
marks of  Milman,  394.  No  Trini- 
tarianism  connected  with  either  of 
the  ancient  festivals,  395.  Not  found 
in  any  document  or  relic  belonging 
to  the  church  of  the  first  three  cen- 
turies, 396. 
Flavian  and  Diodorus  introduce  the 
antiphonic  singing  at  Antioch,  344. 
Flavian  changes  the  old  doxology, 
288,  359. 

G. 

Gieseler  on  Origen's  doctrine  of  the 
generation  of  the  Son,  188.  Says 
Origen  taught  that  the  Spirit  was 
created  by  the  Son,  188. 

Glory,  the,  in  symbolic  art,  368-372. 

Gnostic,  the  true,  or  the  perfect  Chris- 
tian, 144-149.  The  heretical  Gnos- 
tics, 149. 

Grabe  assigns  to  the  Apostolical  Con- 
stitutions a  late  origin,  327. 

Gregory  Nazianzen  represents  the 
ideas  of  theologians  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Spirit  as  undefined  late 
in  the  fourth  century,  287.  Poems 
of,  356,  note. 

Gregory,  Pope,  reforms  church  music, 
346. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  220,  221.  A 
pupil  of  Origen's,  165.  His'pane- 
gj'rical  oration,  165,  note.  Held 
the  Son  to  be  inferior  to  the  Father, 
and  of  a  different  substance,  221, 
337.     His  creed,  320. 

H. 

Harmonius,  an  early  writer  of  hymns, 

349. 
Hegesippus,  a  Christian  historian,  290, 

311. 
Heraclas,    employed    as   assistant    in 

teaching  by  Origen,  157.      Bishop 

of  Alexandria,  164. 
Hennas,  The  "  Shepherd "  of  9-13. 

Its  date  and  reputed  origin,  9.    The 

Greek  text,  10.     The   Codex  Sina- 

iticus,  10.     Contents  and  character 


i04 


INDEX. 


of  the  "Shepherd,"  11-13.  God, 
and  God  only,  appears  in  it  as  su- 
preme, 11,  12.  The  Son  subject, 
12.  The  "  Shepherd  "  and  Arian- 
ism,  13.  The  preexistence  of  the 
Son  appears  in  the  "  Shepherd,"  13. 
Hippolytus,  179.  His  writings,  180. 
Supposed  autlior  of  a  work  against 
the  heresy  of  Artemon,  348.  Sup- 
posed by  Bunsen  to  have  written 
the  "Little  Labyrinth,"  190.  Re- 
cently discovered  work  of,  179,  180. 
His  "  Confession  "  not  Trinitarian, 

180.  Does  not  mention  the  Spirit, 

181.  Bunsen's  remarks  on,  181. 
Holy  Spirit,  Personality  of,  not  taught 

by  Clement  of  Rome,  8.  Supposed 
to  mean  Christ  in  "  Shepherd  "  of 
Hernias,  12.  Personality  of,  does 
not  appear  in  the  Epistle  of  Barna- 
bas, 18.  Justin  Martyr  supposed  by 
some  to  make  it  the  chief  angel,  78. 
Held  it  to  be  an  influence,  79.  Con- 
founded it  with  the  Logos,  79.  The 
Fathers  often  confounded  the  Spirit 
with  the  Logos,  99,  note.  The 
Spirit  placed  by  Origen  below  the 
Son,  186,  338.  He  held  it  to  be 
created  by  the  Son,  188.  Omitted 
in  a  creed  of  Tertullian's,  109,  320. 
Not  alluded  to  in  the  Epistle  to 
Diognetus,  93,  94.  Theophilus  of 
Antioch  may  have  referred  to  it  in 
some  sense,  99.  Athenagoras  de- 
scribes it  as  an  influence,  101.  Sa- 
bellius  regards  it  as  an  influence, 
the  power  of  God,  215,  216.  The- 
ognostus  not  orthodox  on  the  sub- 
ject, 221,  222.  Pierius  maintained 
its  inferiority,  222.  Cyprian  some- 
times confounds  it  with,  sometimes 
distinguishes  it  from  the  Logos,  227, 
228.  Novatian  makes  the  Spirit 
inferior  to  the  Son,  230,  234.  Lac- 
tantius  denies  its  personality,  and 
sometimes  confounds  it  with  the 
Logos,  238.  The  Council  of  Nice 
only  slightly  touches  upon  it,  286, 
287.  The  Council  of  Constantinople 
declares  that  it  is  to  be  worshipped 
and  glorified,  287,  288.  The  Spirit 
made  by  the  Son,  according  to  Eu- 
sebius,  303.  The  Spirit  in  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  329.  Its 
divinity  not  openly  maintained  till 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  century, 
286.  Was  preached  cautiously,  287. 
As  late  as  a.  d.  380,  great  diflcrence 
of  opinion  concerning  it,  287.  Fla- 
vian innovates  in  the  doxology  by 
ascribing  glory  to  the  Spirit,  288, 
369.    The  most  distinguished  Ante- 


Nicene  Fathers,  according  to  Peta- 
vius,  make  the  Spirit  inferior  to  the 
Son,  336.  What  Huet  says  of  early 
views  as  to  the  Sjiirit,  337.  Views 
of  the  Nicene  Fathers,  according  to 
Professor  Stuart,  337.  Admission 
of  Basil,  as  to  the  opinions  of  the 
old  Fatliers,  and  of  his  own  day, 
339.  Arius's  doctrine,  287.  How 
S3'mbolized  and  represented  in  art, 
361,  373-375. 

Homoiousians,  the,  273. 

Horsley  acknowledges  the  Platonism 
of  the  early  Fathers,  65. 

Hosius  subscribes  the  Nicene  creed, 
259.  Subscribes  to  the  Arian  faith, 
273,  339,  340. 

Huet  admits  the  charge  of  Platonism 
against  the  early  Fathers,  65.  What 
he  says  against  the  orthodoxy  of 
the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  336,  337. 

Huidekoper,  Rev.  F.  His  discussion 
of  the  meaning  of  yevoc  in  a  passage 
of  Justin  Martyr's  Dialogue  with 
Trypho,  81,  note.  On  the  clause 
"  descended  into  hell,"  in  the  creed, 
323,  note. 

Hymnology  of  the  ancient  Church, 
343-359.  Not  Trinitarian,  343. 
Singing :  see  Singing.  Primitive 
liymns^lost,  347,  348,  358.  Hymns 
of  the  Brethren,  347.  Psalmodic 
hymns  referred  to  by  Bunsen  as 
Ante-Nicene,  348,  349.  Earliest 
writers  of  hymns  Syrian,  349. 
Bardesanes  and  Harmonius,  349. 
Ephrem,  350.  Hymn  attributed  to 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  350.  Be- 
ryllus,  350,  351.  Nepos,  351.  Paul 
of  Samosata  attempts  to  restore  the 
old  music  and  hymns,  351.  Arius 
and  Juvencus  write  hymns,  353. 
Hilary  of  Poictiers,  353.  Ambrose, 
353.  The  "  Te  Deum,"  353,  note. 
Prudentius,  354,  355.  Nocturnal 
street-singing  at  Constantinople, 
356.  The  poetical  Fathers,  356, 
note.  Council  of  Laodicea  attempts 
to  reform  church  music,  357.  The 
original  doxologies  testify  against 
the  Trinity,  358.  Flavian  changes 
the  old  doxology,  288,  359. 
"  Hypostasis,"  the  term,  how  used  by 
the  Fathers,  74,  note,  182,  note,  334. 


I. 


Ignatian  Letters.     See  Ignatius. 

Ignatius.  The  Epistles  ascribed  to 
him  of  too  uncertain  authorship  and 
too  corrupt  to  be  used,  18.  The 
question  of  their  genuineness,    13, 


INDEX. 


405 


note.  The  recently  discovered  Syr- 
iac  version,  14,  note.  The  doctrine 
of  the  supreme  divinity  of  the  Son 
not  found  in  it,  15. 

Inferiority  of  the  Son  uniformly  as- 
serted by  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers. 
^'ee  Son. 

Irenasus,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  102-105. 
His  works,  102.  He  holds  the  Son 
inferior,  103.  The  Father  supreme, 
103.  That  Christ  suffered  in  his 
whole  nature,  104.  Irenseus  did  not 
attribute  to  the  Saviour  a  rational 
human  soul,  105.  His  two  creeds, 
319,  320, 


Jerome,  time  of,  117.  Translates  part 
of  Origen's  works,  174,  Involved 
in  the  Urigenist  controversy,  211. 
Says  that  .Lactantius  denied  the 
personality  of  the  Spirit,  238.  Wliat 
he  thought  of  Origen's  orthodoxy, 
339. 

Jesus  Christ.     See  Christ,  Son. 

Jews,  the,  hostility  of,  to  the  Chris- 
tians, 90. 

Justin  Martyr  and  his  opinions,  21-91. 
Author  of  the  early  philosophical 
corruptions  of  Christianity,  22.  His 
character,  22,  91.  Birth,  parentage, 
and  studies,  23.  His  delight  in  the 
doctrines  of  Plato,  24,  25.  His  con- 
version, 25,  26.  Dialogue  with 
Trypho,  26,  note,  40.  Writes  his 
first  Apology,  27.  His  second,  28. 
His  last  days  and  martyrdom,  29. 
Writings,  22,  31,  90.  Epistle  to  Di- 
ognetus  probably  not  written  by 
Justin,  32,  note,  92.  Former  esti- 
mation of  his  writings,  32,  33.  An- 
alysis of  his  first  Apology,  34-39. 
Topics  of  his  second,  39.  His  in- 
tellectual and  literary  character,  41 
et  seqq.  Inattention  to  dates,  42,  45. 
Love  of  the  marvellous,  42.  Ac- 
count of  demons,  43.  Misquota- 
tions, 45.  Mode  of  interpreting  the 
Old  Testament,  46,  48.  Types  of 
the  cross,  47.  His  theology,  50. 
Origin  of  the  Trinity,  51,  52.  Jus- 
tin's doctrine  of  the  Logos,  52.  An 
attribute  converted  into  a  real  be- 
ing, a  little  before  the  creation  of 
the  world,  52-56.  Generation  of 
the  Son,  56.  His  views  of  the  Logos 
not  derived  from  the  Hebrew  or 
Christian  Scriptures,  58.   Language 

Sof  the   Old    Testament   examined, 
58-62.     Of  the  New,  63,  64.     Not 


derived  from  the  Apostolic  Fathers, 
20,  64.  Justm  blended  with  Chris- 
tianity the  views  of  the  later  Pla- 
tonists,  64.  Testimony  of  learned 
'i'rinitarians,  65.  Justin  derived  his 
views  from  Philo,  66.  Philo's  opin- 
ions, 66.  The  Son  not  numerically 
one  with  the  Father,  71,  97.  His 
inferiority,  72-74.  Not  to  be  ad- 
dressed in  prayer,  73.  The  modern 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  derives  no 
support  from  Justin,  75.  Two  pas- 
sages from  his  writings  misquoted 
and  misrepresented,  76-78.  His 
views  as  to  the  Spirit,  78.  Held  it  to 
be  an  influence,  79.  Justin  a  Unita- 
rian, 80.  His  account  of  the  human- 
itarians of  his  day,  80.  Christ's  pre- 
existcnce  not  necessary  to  liis  Mes- 
sialiship,  81,  84.  This  view  sustained 
by  Bishop  Watson,  83.  Doctrines 
of  Calvinism  not  in  harmony  with 
Justin's  teachings,  84.  Justin's  ac- 
count of  the  Cliristian  rites  in  his 
day,  86-89.  Baptism,  86.  The 
Lord's  Supper,  87.  Sunday  wor- 
ship, 89.  Hostility  of  the  Jews  to 
Christians,  90.  Memory  of  Justin, 
90. 
Juvencus,  a  writer  of  hymns,  353. 


K. 


Kaye,  Bishop  :  extracts  from  his  ac- 
count of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  122, 
128,  134.  Says  that  the  Apostles' 
Creed  was  unknown  to  Tertullian, 
320.  How  the  terms  "  Sabbath " 
and  "  Sunday  "  were  used,  380.  No 
notice  of  Christ's  nativity  found  in 
Tertullian's  writings,  385. 

King,  Sir  Peter,  on  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  317,  321,  823. 


Lactantius,  236.  His  learning  and  in- 
tellectual character,  236.  Makes  the 
Father  and  Son  two  beings  ;  speaks 
of  the  Son  as  created  and  subordi- 
nate and  possessing  only  derived 
dignity  and  power,  237,  238.  Denies 
the  personality  of  the  Spirit,  238. 
His  views  of  the  Atonement,  238. 
Poems  attributed  to,  356,  note. 

Ladies,  influence  of,  on  the  fortunes 
of  Arianism,  274,  note. 

Laodicea,  council  of,  attempts  to  re- 
form church  music,  357. 

Le  Clerc  testifies  to  the  belief  of  the 
early  Fathers  in  the  inferiority  of 


406 


INDEX. 


the  Son,  70.  His  opinion  of  the  origin 
of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  327. 

Lent ;  its  origin  and  the  manner   of 
keeping  it  in  the  early  Church,  382. 

Leontius  of  Antioch,  a  leading  Arian, 
and  one  of  Lucian's  pupils,  224. 

Logos,  the :  the  Son  held  to  exist  in 
the  Father  from  eternity  as  the 
Logos,  124.  Justin  Martyr's  doc- 
trine of,  52-57.  An  hypostatized 
attribute,  56.  This  doctrine  not 
found  in  the  Old  Testament,  58-62. 
Nor  in  the  New,  63,  64.  Nor  in  the 
writings  of  tlie  Apostolic  Fathers, 
5,  8,  18,  20,  64,  69,  note.  Derived 
from  the  Flatonists,  58,  65.  Testi- 
mony of  learned  Trinitarians,  65. 
Philo's  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  66. 
Coincides  witli  that  of  Justin  and 
subsequent  Fathers,  69.  Citations 
from  the  Fathers  between  Justin 
and  Clement  of  Alexandria  :  Tatian, 
96.  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  98. 
Athenagoras,  100,  101,  note.  Ire- 
nseus,  103.  Tertulllan,  108.  Views 
of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  124-126. 
Doctrine  of  Hippolytus,  181.  Of 
Origeu,  183, 184.  The  Logos  doctrine 
said  by  Artemon  and  his  followers 
to  be  recent,  189,  190.  Rejected 
by  the  other  Monarchians,  191,  192. 
Writers  between  Origen  and  Arius  : 
Doctrine  of  Sabellius,  215,  216.  Of 
Paul  of  Samosata,  217.  Of  the 
scholars  of  Origen,  217.  Of  Me- 
thodius, 223.  Of  Lucian,  225.  Of 
Cyprian,  227,  228.  Of  Novatian, 
231,  233.  Lactantius  sometimes 
confounds  the  Spirit  with  the  Logos, 
238.  Arius  rejected  the  doctrine  of 
the  existence  of  the  Logos  from 
eternity,  as  an  attribute,  253,  254, 
301.  Eusebiusof  Cjesarea  accepted 
it,  302,  304.  Frotiessor  Stuart's 
view  of  Justin's  doctrine  of,  337, 
338.  See  Son. 
Lord's  Supper,  Justin's  account  of  its 

administration,  87. 
Lucian,  Presbyter  of  Antioch,  224-226. 
His  writings,  224.  His  disciples, 
224.  His  opinions,  225.  The  creed 
attributed  to  him,  225.  Approved 
by  Athanasius  and  claimed  by  the 
Arians,  225.  Lucian  seems  to  have 
tended  towards  Arianism,  225,  226. 

M. 

Maris  of  Chalcedon,  one  of  Lucian's 
pupils,  224.  Finally  subscribes  the 
Nicene  Creed,  261.  His  rebuke  of 
Julian,  276. 


Martyrdoms  under  Marcu.s  Aurelius, 
115. 

Methodius,  222-224.  His  writings,  209, 
and  note.  They  savor  of  Arianism, 
223.  Held  the  Son  to  be  inferior  to 
the  Father,  223.  His  strange  theory 
of  the  incarnation  of  the  Divine 
Word,  223,  224.  His  censure  of 
Origen's  doctrines  and  recantation, 
209. 

Monarchians,  the,  110,  189-192,  214r- 
217. 

Monarchy,  the,  TertuUian's  explana- 
tion of.  111. 

Moses,  the  Greeks  accused  of  borrow- 
ing from.     See  Plato. 

Mosheim  says  the  Apostles'  Creed 
was  not  the  composition  of  the 
Apostles,  316. 

"  Muratorian  Fragment,"  the,  9. 


N. 

Neander  thinks  the  Apostolic  origin 
of  the  Apostles'  Creed  a  fable,  317. 
His  opinion  of  the  origin  of  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  328. 
Statement  of  the  views  of  Arius 
compared  with  the  belief  of  preced- 
ing ages,  254.  On  the  eternal  gen- 
eration of  the  Son,  as  connected  by 
Origen  with  the  eternity  of  the 
material  creation,  186,  187.  On 
Artemon's  claim  to  hold  tlie  primi- 
tive doctrine,  189,  190.  Says  the 
Nicene  Creed  was  imposed  by  au- 
thority, 262.  Forced  upon  the 
Oriental  Church,  289.  Says  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria  first  tried  to 
set  aside  the  idea  of  time  in  its  ap- 
plication to  the  transition  of  the 
Logos  into  reality,  126,  note. 

Nepos,  a  writer  of  liymns,  351. 

Nice,  Council  of,  number  and  charac- 
ter of  the  Bishops  present,  252. 
Opinions  of  Arius  compared  with 
the  belief  of  preceding  ages,  252-255 
Proceedings  of  the  council,  256 
Entrance  of  the  Emperor,  257.  Dif 
ficulty  of  framing  a  symbol,  259 
Eusebius  offers  a  creed,  259.  In 
troduction  of  tlie  term  "  consub- 
stantial,"  259.  Its  explanation,  260, 
283,  296.  Condemnation  of  Arius 
and  his  friends,  261.  Parting  feast 
given  by  Constantine,  262,  note. 
Nicene  faith  explained,  282-285. 
Changes  after  the  time  of  the  coun- 
cil, 285.  The  council  does  not  define 
the  Spirit,  286,  287. 

Nicene  Creed,  origin  of,  259.  Imposed 


INDEX. 


407 


by  authority,  262.  Forced  upon 
the  Orieutal  Church,  289. 

Nicene  faith  explained,  260,  282  et 
seqq.,  296.  Councils  which  rejected 
it,  339,  340. 

Nimbus  in  symbolic  art,  368.  Its  sig- 
nificance, 372. 

Noetus  the  Monarchian,  and  his  opin- 
ions, 191,  192. 

Novatian.  229-235.  His  worlc  on  the 
Trinity,  229.  His  "rule  of  faith," 
230.  Teaches  the  supremacy  of  the 
Father,  aud  the  inferiority  of  the 
Son  and  Spirit,  229,  230.  The 
Father  supreme,  230.  The  Son  dis- 
tinct and  inferior,  231-233,  234. 
Only  one  God,  233,234.  The  Spirit 
inferior,  234,  235. 


o. 


"CKcouomy,"  the,  110. 

Old  Testainent,  the,  does  not  teach 
the  Logos  doctrine  as  held  by  the 
early  Fathers,  58-62.  Nor  the  New, 
63,  64. 

"  One,"  the  "  same,"  how  used  by  the 
Fathers,  334. 

Oriental  Creed,  the,  compared  with 
the  Roman  and  with  that  of  Aqui- 
leia,  321,  322.    Not  Triaitarian,  324. 

Origen  and  his  theology,  152-213. 
Parentage  and  education,  152,  153. 
Characteristics  of  his  youtii,  153, 
154.  His  poverty,  154.  Presides 
over  the  Alexandrian  Catechetical 
School,  155.  His  zeal  and  self- 
denial,  155,  156.  Unbounded  pop- 
ularity, 156.  Becomes  a  pupil  of 
Amraonius,  156.  His  Platonism, 
156.  Visits  Rome,  157.  His  He- 
brew studies,  157.  Biblical  criti- 
cism, 158.  His  correction  of  the 
Version  of  the  Seventy,  158,  166, 
note.  Secular  learning ;  philosoph- 
ical studies,  158.  His  philosophi- 
cal convert  Ambrose,  160.  Ambrose 
encourages  his  critical  studies,  and 
devotes  his  wealth  to  the  jiurchase 
of  manuscripts,  130.  Origen's  im- 
mense labors,  160.  Collation  and 
correction  of  MSS.,  160.  Writes 
his  Commentaries,  160.  Also  his 
work  on  "  Principles,"  160.  His 
first  Arabian  journey,  161.  Preaches 
in  Palestine,  162.  Demetrius,  his 
bishop,  offended,  162.  Origen's 
journey  to  Greece,  162.  Is  or- 
dained in  Palestine,  162.  Returns 
to  Alexandria,  and  is  deposed  and 
excommunicated,  162,  163.  Rea- 
sons for  his  excommunication,  164. 


Leaves  Egypt,  163,  165.     Retires  to 
Palestine,    165.      New    pupils,    165. 
Pursues    his    critical    studies,    166. 
Discovery  of  old   manuscripts,  166. 
Visits     Greece     and    Arabia,    1C6. 
Greatly    admired,   167.      Continues 
to   write,    167.      His   extempore  dis- 
courses,  167.     Is  thrown  into  pris- 
on,   and   placed   ou    the    rack,  167. 
His    death,    167.       Character,    1C8. 
His  memory  persecuted,  169.    Ques- 
tion of  his  salvation,  169.     His  in- 
tellectual character,  170.     Merits  as 
au   expositor,    170.      His   writings, 
172.     Scholia,  172.     Commentaries, 
166,    173.      Homilies,    174.      Book 
"  Of    Principles,"    160,    166,    174. 
Hexapla,  158,   166,   175.      Interpre- 
tation of  the  Scriptures,  1 73,  note. 
Work    against    Celsus,    176.      His 
views  of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  182  et 
seqq.,   338.      Believed  God  and  the 
Son   to    be  two  beings,   182.      The 
Father  greater   than  the  Son,  183. 
Examples    of    his     language     and 
reiisoning,  183,  184.     Ciirist  not  an 
object  of  supreme  worship,  and  not 
to  be  addressed  in  prayer,  184.  The 
Spirit    below    the    Son,    186,    338 
Comparative  rank  of   the   Father 
Son,  and  Spirit,  186.     Eternal  gen- 
eration  of  the    Son   connected   by 
Origen    with    the    eternity  of   the 
material  creation,  186-188.    Christ's 
preiixistent   human   soul,  192,   193. 
Efficacy    of    Christ's     death,    193. 
System  of   rational  and   animated 
natures,  194  et  seqq.     All  souls  pre- 
existent,  195.     All  placed  in  a  for- 
mer state  of  trial,  195.     The  fall  of, 
and  creation  of  the  material  universe 
for  their  reception,  195.     The  stars 
animated,  and  will  be  judged^  195. 
Angels,  demons,  tutelar  spirits,  195, 
196.     Present  condition  the   result 
of  former  trial,  197.     Extent  of  the 
redemption,   197.      Benefits  all   ra- 
tional natures,  including   celestial, 
197   et  seqq.      Moral    freedom    and 
ability,  199.     No  miconditional  elec- 
tion, 200,  201.    Views  of  the  future, 
202   et  seqq.     Form   of  the    future 
body,  203.   Restoration  of  all  beings 
to  virtue  and  happiness,  203.     Na- 
ture   of    future    punishment,    204 
Final  restoration  of  all  things,  205 
206,  208.     Rewards  of  the  blessed 

206.  Perpetual  lapses  and  returns, 

207.  New  material  creations,  208. 
Fate    of    the     Origeuian  doctrines, 

208.  Origeuists    and    anii-Origen- 
i.sts,   209  et  seqq.      Origen  ism    finds 


408 


INDEX. 


shelter  in  the  monasteries,  212. 
Final  anathema  against  Origen,  212. 
Freedom  of  speculation,  212,  213. 
Festival  of  Christmas  unknown  to 
Origen,  386.  Summaries  of  faith 
by,  320.  What  Huet  and  Professor 
Stuart  thought  of  his  orthodoxy, 
337,  338.  What  Jerome  thought, 
339. 

Orpheus,  Christ  compared  to,  122, 
150,  note. 

Otto,  his  edition  of  Justin,  32,  note. 


P. 

"  Pedagogue  "  of  Clement,  130-139. 

Pamphilus,  the  friend  of  Eusebius  : 
some  account  of  him,  291,  292. 
With  Eusebius,  writes  an  "Apolo- 
gy "  for  Origen,  209,  210,  291,  292. 

Pantsenus,  117,  118. 

Papias,  310. 

Paul  of  Samosata,  and  his  opinions, 
216,  217,  351.  He  held  that  Christ 
was  man  by  nature  and  tliat  the 
divine  Logos  united  itself  with  him, 
216,  217.  He  attempts  to  restore 
the  old  music  and  hymns,  351. 

Pearson  assigns  to  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions  a  late  origin,  327. 
Does  not  find.tlie  Atlianasian  Creed 
mentioned  before  the  year  600,  341. 

Pelagius,  doctrines  of,  212. 

Petavius  testifies  to  the  Platonism  of 
the  early  Fathers,  65.  Charges 
Tertullian  witli  impiety  and  absurd- 
ity for  representing  the  Father  as 
far  above  the  Son,  108,  109.  Ad- 
duces evidence  against  the  ortho- 
doxy of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers, 
336.  Says  that  most  Catholics  dared 
not  profess  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be 
God,  286. 

Philo,  opinions  of,  66-68. 

Photius  complains  that  Clement  of 
Rome  does  not  ascribe  to  Christ  di- 
vine qualities,  7.  Says  Clement  of 
Alexandria  made  the  Son  a  "  creat- 
ure," 120,  note,  124.  That  Tiieog- 
nostus  did  the  same,  221,  222.  That 
Pierius  made  the  Father  and  Son  to 
be  two  substances,  222. 

Pierius,  222.  He  makes  the  Son  in- 
ferior to  the  Father  ;  the  Fatlier 
and  Son  two  natures,  222.  Wiiat 
Huet  says  of  him,  336,  337.  Holds 
the  Spirit  to  be  inferior  to  the  Fa- 
tlier and  Son, 222. 

Plato  and  the  Platonists  falsely  said  to 
have  borrowed  from  Moses,  75, 
note,  126,  144.    Inspiration  ascribed 


to  tliem  by  Clement  of  Alexandria 
and  others,  127. 

Platonism  of  the  early  Fathers,  65, 66, 
74.  Concessions  of  learned  Trini- 
tarians, 65. 

Polycarp  :  what  Irenaeus  and  Jerome 
say  of  him,  15.  His  martyrdom,  15, 
115.  His  Epistle  to  the  Philippians, 
15-17.  Probably  genuine  in  the 
main,  but  supposed  to  be  not  wholly 
genuine,  15,  16.  Its  probable  date 
and  its  character,  16.  Represents 
the  Father  as  supreme  and  the  Son 
as  subordinate,  16,  17. 

Praxeas,  the  Monarchian,  and  his  opin- 
ions, 191. 

Preexistence  of  souls,  195. 

Preexistent  human  soul  of  Christ,  Ori- 
gen's  view  of,  192,  193. 

Prudentius  :  notice  of  his  poems,  354. 

Q. 

Quadratus,  a  Christian  Apologist,  21. 
R. 

Rimini,  council  of.     See  Ariminum. 

Roman  creed,  the  early,  compared 
with  the  Oriental  and  with  that  of 
Aquileia,  321,  322. 

Rufinus  :  his  translation  of  some  of 
Origen's  works,  174, 175.  His  fable 
about  the  origin  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  317,  318.  Three  old  creeds 
given  by  him  compared,  321,  322. 
Says  that  Clement  of  Alexandria 
called  the  Son  a  creature,  124,  339. 
That  Dion^'sius  fell  into  Arianism, 
339. 


Sabbath  always  meant  Saturday 
among  the  ancient  Christians,  379, 
380,  381.     Not  a  fast,  379,  380,  381. 

Sabellins  and  his  doctrines,  215,  216. 
Held  that  the  Logos  was  tempora- 
rily hypostatized  in  the  Saviour, 
215. 

"  Same,"  how  used  by  the  Fathers, 
334. 

Sculpture,  art  of,  its  influence  among 
the  Greeks,  according  to  Clement, 
128. 

Secular  learning,  controversy  about, 
168,  159. 

Secundus  refuses  to  subscribe  the  Ni- 
cene  Creed,  and  is  banisiied,  261. 

Seleucia,  council  of,  rejects  the  term 
"  consubstantial,"  340. 


INDEX. 


409 


Semi-Arians,  or  Homoiousians,  the, 
273. 

Seiniscli  :  cliaracter  of  his  work  on 
Justin  ^lartyr,  51,  note. 

Septuagiiit  version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 158. 

Shepherd  of  Hernias.     See  Hermas. 

Singing  among  the  early  Christians, 
o4o-i}47.  First  regular  choir,  344. 
Flavian  and  Diodorus  introduce  the 
antiphonic  singing  at  Antioch,  344. 
Origin  of  this  mode  of  singing,  345. 
Ambrose  introduces  it  into  the 
West,  345.  Improvements  under 
Gregory,  346,  347. 

Sirmium,  third  council  of,  rejects  the 
term  "  consubstantial,"  339;  also 
the  fifth  council  of,  340. 

Son,  the,  held  to  have  beeii  originally 
an  attribute  of  the  Fatlier.  See 
Logos.  His  generation,  56.  His 
derived  nature  and  inferiority  to 
tlie  Father,  uniformly  taught  by 
the  Fatiiers  of  the  hrst  three  cen- 
turies, 70,  75,  239,  335.  Citations 
from  the  Apostolic  Fathers  :  Clem- 
ent of  Rome,  5-8.  Hernias,  12. 
Polycarp,  16.  Barnabas,  18.  From 
Justin,  71-74,  76-78.  Tatian,  96,  97. 
Theophilus  of  Antioch,  97-99.  Athe- 
nagoras,  100.  Irenteus,  102,  103. 
TertuUian,  106-110.  Clement  of  Al- 
exandria, 124-126.  Hippolytus,  180. 
Origen,  182  et  sa/q.  Eternal  gen- 
eration of,  connected  by  Origen  with 
the  eternity  of  the  material  creation, 
186-188.  JDoctrine  of  the  Monarchi- 
ans,  Artenion,  Praxeas,  Noetus,  and 
Beryllus,  189-192.  Of  Sabellius, 
214.  Of  Paul  of  Samosata,  216. 
Origen's  views  of  the  "  eternal  gen- 
eration "  not  adopted  by  his  schol- 
ars, 217.  Doctrine  of  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus,  220.  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  218.  Citations  from 
Cyprian,  227-229.  Tlieognostus,  221. 
Doctrine  of  Pierius,  222.  Citations 
from  Methodius,  223.  Doctrine  of 
Lucian,  225.  Citations  from  Nova- 
tian,  230-234.  Arnobius,  235.  Lac- 
tantius,  237,  238.  Arius's  views  as 
to,  252-255.  The  Son  a  great  pre- 
existent  Spirit,  253.  Opinions  of 
Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  302-305.  The 
Son  appears  as  inferior  in  the  Apos- 
tolical Constitutions,  328,  329.  Truth 
respecting  the  Son  said  to  have  been 
corrupted  in  the  time  of  Zephyri- 
nus,  190.  The  Father  and  the  Son 
relatively  unequal,  according  to  the 
Nicene  faith,  284,  285.  Huet's  testi- 
mony to  what  the  Fathers  taught 


I  of  the  inferiority  of  the  Son,  336, 
337.  Statements  of  Professor  Stu- 
art, 337,  338.  Of  Jerome,  Basil,  and 
Rufinus,  338,  339.  See  also  Artis- 
tic Representations  of  the  Trinity, 
Christ,  Logos. 

Souls,  all,  preiixistent,  198,  195.  .See 
Origen. 

Spirit.     See  Holy  Spirit. 

Stars  animated  and  will  be  judged, 
according  to  Origen,  195. 

Stromata  of  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
141-149.     Of  Origen,  166. 

Stuart,  Professor,  says  that  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers  make  the  Son  and 
Spirit  derived  beings,  and  deny  the 
numerical  identity  of  the  Father 
and  Son,  337,  338.  That  Origen 
makes  the  Father  greater  than  the 
Son  and  the  Spirit,  and  the  Son 
greater  than  the  Spirit,  338. 

Sufferings  of  a  future  lite  remedial, 
according  to  Origen,  203. 

Sunday,  how  and  why  observed,  ac- 
cording to  Justin  Martyr,  89.  See 
Festivals. 

Syriac  version  of  the  Ignatian  Epis- 
tles, 14,  note,  15. 


T. 


Tatian,  the  Syrian,  95-97.  A  Platonist, 
95.  His  conversion,  subsequent  his- 
tory, and  works,  96.  His  views  as 
to  the  Father,  96.  The  Logos,  96. 
The  Son  a  distinct  and  subordinate 
being,  97.  Huet's  opinion  of  Ta- 
tian's  doctrines,  336. 

"  Te  Deum,"  origin  of,  353,  note. 

Terms,  meaning  of,  239,  240,  332-335. 
Change  in,  332.  Old  used  in  a 
modern  sense,  240,  333. 

TertuUian,  105-112.  His  history,  char- 
acter, and  writings,  105,  106.  He 
teaches  the  supremacy  of  the  Fa- 
ther, 106.  The  Son  numerically 
distinct,  107.  Liferior,  107,  108, 
111.  Not  eternal,  108.  The  Logos 
and  the  Son,  108.  His  creeds  not 
Trinitarian,  109.  One  quoted,  in 
which  the  Spirit  is  not  mentioned, 
109,  320.  The  Apostles'  Creed  not 
known  to  TertuUian,  320.  Holds 
man's  nature  to  be  not  totally  cor- 
rupt, 1 10.  The  "  CEconomy  "  —  the 
Trinity  and  the  Monarchy,  110. 
His  answer  to  the  objection  that  he 
makes  two  Gods,  110,  111.  His  ex- 
planation of  the  divine  monarchy, 
111.  Shows  no  homoousian  Trin- 
ity, 111.  Christ's  human  rational 
soul.  111.    TertuUian  and  the  Atha- 


410 


INDEX. 


nasian  orthodoxy,  112.  Christmas 
not  known  to  TertulHan,  385. 

Theodosius  issues  severe  edicts  against 
the  Arians,  '274. 

Theognis  of  Nice,  one  of  Lucian's  pu- 
pils, 224.  Subscribes  the  Nicene 
Creed,  but  continues  to  teach  Arian 
doctrine  and  is  exiled,  261.  Perse- 
veres in  opposition  to  the  consub- 
stantial  faith,  276. 

Theognostus,  221.  Photius  says  he 
calls  the  Son  a  creature,  221,  222. 
His  opinion  as  to  the  Spirit,  222. 

Theonas  refuses  to  subscribe  the 
Nicene  Creed,  and  is  banished,  261. 

Theophilus  of  Alexandria  engages  in 
the  Origenist  controversy,  210,  211. 
His  death,  211. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch,  97-99.  His 
writings,  97.  Speaks  of  God  as 
supreme,  the  Son  as  inferior,  97. 
His  views  of  the  generation  of  the 
Son,  98.  Of  the  Logos,  98.  The 
Father  only  to  be  worshipped,  98. 
Pirst  used  the  term  "  Trinity,"  ap- 
plying it  to  God,  his  Logos,  and  his 
wisdom,  99.  Huet's  opinion  of  his 
doctrine,  336. 

Tilleniont  calls  the  Apostolical  Con- 
stitutions a  fabricittiou  of  the  sixth 
century,  326. 

Time,  how  measured,  255.  Meaning 
of  the  expressions,  "  Before  time 
and  the  ages,"  "  When  time  was 
not,"  when  used  by  the  old  Chris- 
tian writers,  255,  256. 

Tomline,  Bishop,  says  it  is  not  known 
who  wrote  the  Apostles'  Creed,  317. 
The  Apostles  prescribed  no  creed, 
317.  The  Athanasian  creed  was 
not  written  by  Athanasius,  341. 

Trinity,  the.  The  germ  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  introduced  in 
Justin's  time,  80.  The  term  "  Trin- 
ity "  first  used  by  Theophilus  of 
Antioch,  99.  The  doctrine  of  tlie 
Trinity  of  gradual  formation,  286. 
How    the    Trinity    of   the   Fathers 


differed  from  the  modern,  335,  83G. 
Ancient  Hymnology  not  Trinita- 
rian, 358,  359.  No  Trinitarianism 
in  any  artistic  remains  of  the  earlier 
ages,  360,  361,  376.  The  Ancient 
Festivals  not  Trinitarian,  395,  396. 
The  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
not  found  in  any  document  or  relic 
belonging  to  the  Church  of  the  first 
three  centuries,  396.  See  also  Artis- 
tic Eepresentations  of  the  Trinity, 
Holy  Spirit,  Logos,  Son. 


u. 


Ulphilas,  or  Ulfila,  introduces  the 
alphabet  and  Arianism  among  the 
Goths,  274. 

Unlettered  Christians  of  the  early 
Church,  tlie,  112.  Perplexed  by 
Tertullian's  "  fficonoray,"  110. 

V. 

Valens  friendly  to  the  Arians,  274. 

w. 

I  Watson,  Bishop,  maintains,  with  Jus- 
tin, that  the  preexistence  of  Jesus 
was  not  necessary  to  his  sufficiency 
as  a  Saviour,  83. 

Winston  atfirms  that  the  early  Fathers 
believed  the  Son  to  be  distinct  from 
the  Father,  and  inferior,  70.  As- 
signs to  the  Apostolical  Constitu- 
tions a  sacred  origin,  327. 

Whitsunday,  Festival  of,  384. 

Wine  :  Clement  of  Alexandria  on  its 
use,  133-135. 


Zcphyrinus  :  the  truth  relating  to  the 
Son  said  to  have  been  corrupted  in 
his  time,  190. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01042  3087 


DATE  DUE 

*^^««*. 

•g**^' 

mmim 

'^^ 

wmm^^ 

Demco,  Inc.  38-293 


